Talk:Sharon Tate/Archive 1

Archive 1

Early comments

As I view this page with netscape, the photograph is covering up the text. That doesn't happen with other photographs in other articles. Could someone correct the problem? -- Mike Hardy

Is this picture fair use? -- Zoe

Could you be a bit more precise? --KF 00:13 Dec 27, 2002 (UTC)

Did you take the photo, or if you did not, do you have permission of the photographer to use it here? -- Zoe

No, and no. I believe it is one of the best-known pictures of the couple; it has appeared so frequently over the past decades (newspapers, books, the Internet) that I thought no one would mind if we used it here. If you do, please remove it. --KF 00:25 Dec 27, 2002 (UTC)

I know the picture is famous, but naked images of dead people might be considered inappropriate by some cultures. --G

Well then, one more reason to get rid of it. If ever in the future I feel the unlikely urge to look at naked images of dead people I'll retrieve it from my hard disc. When did Polanski die? --KF 00:36 Dec 27, 2002 (UTC)

Polanski isn't dead, but Tate is, of course. -- Zoe

Cut it in half then? --KF

Since the picture is supposed to be attached to the Sharon Tate article, it wouldn't make much sense to leave just the Polanski half of it on the page. -- Zoe

Let's delete the whole picture and use our time wisely. I'm still looking forward to the day when everyone recognizes my cynical remarks as what they are, and I do apologize, Zoe. :-) --KF 00:54 Dec 27, 2002 (UTC)

Sorry, KF, I didn't catch it.  :-) -- Zoe

Copyright status

i just spent a considerable time cleaning up the article, only to notice this external link:

*http://www.allstarz.org/~sharontate (Majority of biography used from this site!!)

furthermore, text from the source: http://www.allstarz.org/users/sharontate/biography.html has been used verbatim. the source claims that in order to use any information (which is copyrighted), you need to ask "erin", but i see no note in the talk page here that the copyright owner gave permission to wikipedia to use the text under the gfdl. the edit in question that first introduced this content was by User:FireflyAngel, in a fairly old edit (back in august 2003): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Sharon_Tate&diff=1271396&oldid=1266401

could fireflyangel please clarify the copyright status of this text? thanks Clarkk 10:45, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I am the same person. Sorry for not replying sooner. =)

i.e. just to clarify you are the "erin" that wrote the text, and that therefore you are contributing the text to wikipedia under the GFDL? thanks for contributing! clarkk 09:48, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

As far as the picture - I honestly don't know who took it or where it came from... Sorry. =( It may have been taken by her personal photographer/documentarian Hatami. I do believe it was taken at Patty Duke's house (Hatami began working for her while she was doing the 'Eye of the Devil' film, and continued to do so up until she died) while she was staying there since it looks to be the same picket fence, but that is all I know about it.

Sorry if I have done anything wrong - I'm still getting used to this system! =)

Sincerely, FireflyAngel

it's ok, i'm not so much concerned with who took it (because if it was a work-for-hire, like a newspaper or magazine photographer then the copyright would be with the newspaper not the original photographer). but you must have downloaded it and/or scanned it from some source originally, so first we should establish that source, and from that source we can trace the copyright. unfortunately due to the horrible state of the copyright laws, we pretty much have to assume a photograph is "guilty" until proven innocent, otherwise we can put the wikipedia project in jeopardy. pretty much the only "safe" images to use are images that you took yourself, or images from public domain sources like the us govt, or images that others have released under the GFDL or certain other licenses like those from the Creative Commons. that said, there is such thing as fair use for using excerpts from copyrighted works (like quotes or images), but these days fair use simply means the right to hire a lawyer to defend your fair use rights (see Free Culture, in particular page 107 to page 111), which means we have to extra careful when using works in this way, because the law is so ambiguous (by the way, IANAL). clarkk 09:48, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea where the image came from - I have hundreds upon hundreds of images saved on my computer. I believe Sharon's sister Debra may hold copyright on it right now, or could help out, so I'll get in contact with her and see what can be done. Sincerely, FireflyAngel

Surprisingly, the very first picture of Tate is also still around. It seems there's a whole collection of Sharon Tate images we can't use. <KF> 09:58, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There is a Sharon Tate Yahoo group you may want to check out. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sharontatethegoddess

Gay Icon Project

In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 22:17, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

uncredited use of this article?

2violent.com has several pages that seem to be copies of wikipedia articles, for example [1] looks like a 09:52, 2004 Jan 20 revision of this article. I don't know the exact procedure, so I've listed the site on Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Abc#2violent.com (see for details). -Wikibob | Talk 20:05, 2005 May 22 (UTC)

Notes

Could we make these more sensible? The first reference points to number 4! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Done. I thought the way to do it was to list the references in a logical sequence. ie books by title. etc and then the references linked to wherever. I must admit I didn't care for the randomised effect it had, but when it went through PR and FAC without anyone commenting I didn't think about it anymore. I can't find anything in Wikipedia:Manual of style or similar reference, but it looks better. Rossrs 09:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks - looks much better :-) Even though I do like {{ref}} and {{note}} better... :) - Ta bu shi da yu 05:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Grammatically tortured sentence

The sentence, "Van Houten had been considered as the most likely of the killers to achieve parole, however, following the efforts of Kay and Tate, was denied" in the "Legacy" section does not make sense. Could someone please identify what it is supposed to be saying, and fix it? Kelly Martin 02:21, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

It's trying to say that of all the killers, Van Houten was considered the most likely to be parolled. However, when it looked like she (Van Houten) might get it, Kay and Tate layed the smackdown and Van Houten's parole application was denied. →Raul654 02:46, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Death location

10050 Cielo Drive is where she was killed. I attempted to add that page to the Tate bio, but the edits were reversed. Don't you think it would be good to have?

I think it should be in the article – and it is. It's mentioned specifically in the "Marriage to Roman Polanski" section, complete with a wikilink, and then it's referred to during the remainder of the article, making it clear that the house was the scene of her death. I think the opening paragraph should be no more than a summary of the article, and should only deal with the most relevant aspects of the article. The address itself doesn't add to our understanding of the subject in the opening section. It's just an address. I didn't revert it, but I think it fits better later in the article. Rossrs 12:34, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Odd photo

Is it just me, or is it quite hard to work out what is going on in the photo with the caption, 'Tate at her home shortly before her death'? Her arms look like stumps or is that the glare in the photo? Can we clean it up?

I don't think there's much we can do with it. To me she looks she's about to stretch her arms and the glare of the sun has created the effect. The image is taken from a video recording off a tv program and the original is not great quality. It's about the best I could do but if you want to try enhancing it, go ahead. The main reason I put it in originally (and I realize that my intention has been lost with subsequent edits) was to illustrate Watson saying he didn't realize that Tate, who was wearing only her underwear when she was murdered, was pregnant. She certainly looks pregnant in the photo which is more or less how she was dressed when he saw her. So with that in mind, I was looking at her stomach rather than her arms, but now that you point it out, I can see what you mean. Rossrs 07:35, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Sharon Tate was murdered

Saying Tate was "killed" is not as strong as saying she was murdered. "Killed" could mean anything. Maybe Manson accidentally set the house on fire. That could certainly result in people being "killed". Murdered shows intent, and this is one of the most extreme and diabolical cases of murder in recent history. "Murder" is also the correct legal term. ie the Manson family members were convicted of "murder" not of "killing". "Killed" does not even begin to summarize what happened, so can we please leave the word "murder" in the opening paragraph. It's more than mere semantics. Thanks Rossrs 16:24, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• I strongly concur. Her KILLERS were charged with MURDER, and duly convicted. This is FACT, not opinion.

2nd paragraph

Should the 2nd paragraph in the introduction -- about her mother's work and law changes - be placed below in the regular article? It seems to get a little far off-topic to be in an intro. Just a thought. --Spesek 20:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I disagree. The article is in three sections - career, murder/trial and legal changes that have been implemented since. The lead paragraph needs to summarize the article, so it needs to cover the three main sections. I think it's probably a little detailed but then, on the other hand, most of Tate's "fame" and certainly her influence, has come about since her death. I can see your point, but I'm not sure how to edit it without making the lead too sparse. I think the end quote ""help transform Sharon's legacy from murder victim to a symbol of victim's rights", brings it back squarely to Sharon Tate and makes the preceding information absolutely relevant. Rossrs 21:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Point taken, thanks for taking a look. I think you're right, now! --Spesek 03:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted the section about Doris Tate's work back into the lead paragraph as I think it's an important aspect of Sharon Tate's story, and without it, the lead section is incomplete. Tate is unusual in that her "fame" occured because of and after her murder, much more than her acting career which was only in its early stages when she died. For the lead to be a summary of the article I think it needs to extend past her death, and although at first glance it may appear that the paragraph is about Doris Tate (and it is in the sense that after Sharon Tate's death, her story and that of her mother are intertwined) - it actually establishes Sharon Tate's notability. To put it simply - minor actress, high profile murder victim. This is just my line of thinking, but please comment if there is disagreement. Rossrs 20:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use Explanation for photo of Sharon Tate pregnant

Just wanted to mention that I was very impressed with your detailed justification for the fair use of the photo of pregnant Sharon Tate. I found your argument to be well-reasoned and convincing. As a law student and former professional writer, it appealed to me both for the points you made and the way you made them. Well done.

64.173.171.134 (talk) 14:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC) joykatleen

External Links ?

Hello All I have a question about external links. There is a site that I would like to see added. It is a discussion forum that is free and non-commercial that has a wealth of information and documentation that is not in this article. It is user created and supported. It can be searched and used without any special login required. It is truthontatelabianca.com. Please visit the site and check out the breath of discussion and information available. And consider adding to the external links. Coroner In Law (talk) 22:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Creation of Tate-LaBianca murders main article

I am considering creating a main article known as "Tate-LaBianca murders," substantially comprised of the text made up of "Murder" and "Arrest and trial of the Manson family" in the Sharon Tate article and comparable text from the LaBianca bio article.

Here are the reasons:

1. The Sharon Tate bio article is long for a young actress with a short career; 2. The Tate bio article, imho, focuses too much attention on the people that caused her death; 3. The Tate bio article focuses excessively on her death more than her life; and 4. Six other relatively unknown people died at about the same time in the same series of murders.

Who agrees with me? Has this been substantially done elsewhere? Who disagrees? And why? Swinterich (talk) 03:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I am just pasting in the response I gave to this proposal made on my talk page and may expand it a bit.

I would discourage you from going ahead and creating a separate article regarding her death. At 49kb, this article is precisely within the guidelines for article length and removing the death material would take the article well below the size for a featured article (perhaps shorten it by 20% or so). That also means that, in proportion to her career and events after her death, it does not focus too much attention on the people who killed. Doing that would effectively jeopardize the featured article status of this article. I am not aware of any policy or guideline that would indicate the article is too long for an actress with a short career, particularly when the primary reason she is now so prominent, and is widely known, is because of the manner of her death as well as the after-effects of her death, which was a harbringer of victims' rights advocacy championed in her memory, by her mother and family. Her life and career would not warrant that much coverage in the absence of the manner of her death, and likely would not ever approach FA status.

I believe that articles which attempted to cover the Tate/La Bianca murders separate from the ones that already exist have been deleted before because they are well-covered already and would be deleted as re-creation of previously deleted content. While I can understand your reservations about the perpetrators, the fact that she was killed in a most notorious case cannot be ignored and it would do a disservice to the case and to the people who worked to keep this article both within context and to reflect what occurred. There is nothing you can actually cut from the LaBianca's article without removing the reason for which they are notable for Wikipedia. There are not many articles with which you can compare one like this. There are not that many high profile articles on actors who were murdered by a family of pseudo-hippies that resulted in one of the most highly covered trials of the 20th century. There are fewer articles that treat the death of that actor separately. Marilyn Monroe comes to mind, but that article is more about the mysteries surrounding her death and the conspiracy theories that emerged from it. That isn't true in this case. The details of the arrest, trial and conviction of the killers are covered in 5 paragraphs, about 6kb. That isn't excessive, nor is it unnecessary in terms of what the event actually was, especially when one considers it took Vincent Bugliosi hundreds of pages to cover it.

The case is covered quite concisely between the Charles Manson article, which encompasses the entirety of the dynamics of that group and their actions, this one, which, in my view, was covered with respect regarding Tate, the legacy left by her and its work, as well as her marriage and career, with neutrality and no feeling of "memorial" and the LaBianca article. This article approaches the murders with a different viewpoint than the one of Manson's - it covers the response to her death, from Polanski, from the film community, and from what happened after. You can't just remove that because it focuses on her murder. In most instances on Wikipedia, biographies for victims are quite often not included because the victims aren't considered notable beyond their murder. This is one of the exceptions to that rule and I believe it treats the whole subject correctly. There is nothing to my knowledge that can be added to the content on Manson, Tate and the LaBiancas that isn't already covered, and appropriately interlinked, that would contribute to a greater understanding to this case. And my knowledge of the case is quite comprehensive.

Finally, it would be a disservice to the people who worked to create this quality article to dismantle it and take the results of that work to create a new article. While there certainly is no ownership on Wikipedia, there is quality work done by editors taking time to find a fresh and new approach to something everyone knows something about. One of the primary editors who worked this article to FA status, and who I believe would also object (although I can't reflect the clarity and logic he would use), is on holiday until the end of March. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Without addressing too many points, I'm also against splitting the article up. Like it or not, Tate's notability is closely associated with her death and it stands to reason that those points will be addressed even more than her short career. Since this article is an FA, several different editors who specialize in perfecting articles have reviewed it and found nothing wrong with it. I trust their judgment. Personally, I wouldn't feel comfortable making huge changes to any FA, but if it were needed, I certainly would be on board. This isn't the case here. Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 08:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with moving the murders section to a separate page. Doing so will significantly shorten the article and most likely demote it from FA status. On the other hand, the Leno and Rosemary LaBianca article is start class. You may want to consider trying to improve that page instead. momoricks (make my day) 02:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I also disagree with the suggestion of moving the murder section. I rewrote this article a few years ago, and nominated it for FA status, and the overall structure has remained the same since then. I'll explain exactly why I set it out the way I did. I did a Google search of Tate articles, and found that they fell into 3 distinct categories. 1. Fansites, that worshiped her and made her out to be something more than she really was, and glossed over her murder except to tug at the old heartstrings. Certainly not objective, and by offering nothing but unqualified praise, really did her a disservice by failing to depict her as a human being who happened to be a film actress. 2. Crime sites, that glorified her murder and objectified her in an unseemly manner. Again, not objective. 3. Sites that gave dry summaries from court transcripts especially in relation to the work of Doris Tate and it's place in law. Boring. Nothing about Sharon Tate. She was just "the victim". So, with the belief that each element was important to her overall story, what I was trying to do was to bring those three elements together into one article, without placing undue emphasis on any of them, and to try to relate the story in a neutral manner. I think it was successful in that regard, and I still think it's the only article about Tate on the web, that does so.

Having said that, I don't think that's strong enough reason not to change it. I think the reason for not changing it is because Tate is mainly notable because of her murder, and in a broader sense, because of the importance her murder has had as a "defining event" of the 60s but also in a real sense in how laws have evolved as a result of it. If her article was only about her career, it wouldn't be much of an article. Her acting career, 40 years after her death, is almost incidental, but at the time of the murder it was the combination of her celebrity status and her shocking death that brought her "notability". Before her death, she was not particularly well known. Another example I can think of is Anne Frank. She's notable for writing a diary, but the diary may not have moved people if she had lived. Publishers at the time were reluctant to touch it, and it was only the tragedy of Anne's death that provided an "angle" by which interest was generated, following a newspaper article. Her notability hinges on her death. Her article doesn't end with her death, because her notability began only after she'd been dead for some time. With Sharon Tate it's similar. A relatively minor actress at the beginning of a career that never eventuated, and who became notable primarily due to the circumstances of her death. For the article to be comprehensive and complete, it needs to move beyond the 26 years of her life. I also agree that fragmenting it would see it removed from the list of FA's. In fact, I'd be leading to call to have it removed.

To address the 4 points individually. 1. I feel it's an appropriate length for this person, as her career is not the main reason for her notability. 2. I'm personally offended that Tate's name is forever linked to the names of the people who killed her, but that's just the way it is. It's one of the most significant murder cases ever, and the victims and the perpetrators are linked. There's no getting around it, in my opinion. 3. The article has also been criticised for placing too much emphasis on an acting career that was less than remarkable. Her death is more notable than her life. That's sad but true, and I think the article reflects that in the correct measure. 4. That the 6 other people are remembered as secondary to Sharon Tate is a sad thing, but again, it's accurate. If the other 5 had been killed, but Sharon Tate had not been a victim, the case probably would have received less publicity. There have been other multiple homicides that have not attracted much media interest. A beautiful, 8 month pregnant, glamourous actress is going to be the focus of discussion - a late 30s unsuccessful Polish writer, or an 18 year old in the wrong place at the wrong time were never going to arouse as much interest. From the time of the first reports of the murders, until the present day, they are seen as minor players in the overall story. Again, this is reflected in the short articles about each of the other victims. I see where you're coming from, and I'm glad you raised this question, but I disagree. I'd like to see the current structure remain. Sorry, if this is a bit rambling. Rossrs (talk) 06:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I just read this article and it's one of the best and interesting articles I have read. It actually kept me interested all the way to the end. I think breaking off the murder aspect would be a big mistake. The article is an FA and I don't think it should be changed like suggested. The editors who put this together did an excellent job and I commend them for the way they put it together. I found it interesting reading, knowing the history of this subject, it says it all. I suggest leaving the article the way it is. Just wanted to add my opinion and also let any of the editors who helped write this know how interesting I found it. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a very nice comment, that I didn't see until now. So, on behalf of the many people who have contributed to this article - thank you. Rossrs (talk) 08:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The article is way too long. The trial and conviction of the murderers has nothing to do with her life and should be deleted (and possibly moved elsewhere). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.59.135 (talk) 00:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Tate is one of a relatively small number of people who achieved notability more for their deaths, than for their lives. The article should convey this, and currently it does. The article is called "Sharon Tate" which is a much broader subject than "The Life of Sharon Tate". Rossrs (talk) 08:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Polanski

Why is she not mentioned as Sharon Tate Polanski in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.94.143.90 (talk) 06:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Because she was known professionally and commonly as "Sharon Tate". That is the way she was billed in all of her film appearances, publicity, official website and post-death biographies and articles. Rossrs (talk) 07:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

However, it WAS her real name and should be mentioned in the article! see http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=pv&GRid=1019&PIpi=20528891 --Judith M-S (talk) 05:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It was her legal name, which is more specific than saying it was her "real" name. It is mentioned in her article. Her marriage to Roman Polanski is well covered, including in the lead, where her married name is implied by the fact that her husband's name is provided. MoS:BIO includes this sentence : "A woman, like all other biographical entrants, should be referred to by her most common name, and that would not necessarily involve using her husband's surname." Other examples of featured articles that do not include the married name of the subject in the opening sentence are Katie Holmes, Celine Dion, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Mariah Carey, Miranda Otto and Gwen Stefani, all living people and all still married. Their current legal names are their married names, but it is conventional for us not to use them. Judy Garland is another featured article. Like Tate, she was married at the time of her death, but the article does not give her married name in the opening sentence. So, there is nothing unconventional about the way it's given in this particular article. In fact your change has made it somewhat unconventional when compared to other featured articles for married, female celebrities. I use the featured articles as examples only because they've all been scrutinised more than most articles, and they are more likely to represent a "standard" than articles that have not been looked at so closely. On that basis, I will return to the previous version. Rossrs (talk) 05:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I can see the point. Compared with the other articles you've referred to it's correct to leave it out. But: don't you think that the legal name always should be mentioned in an encyclopedia? After all this is not the yellow press but a source which should (in my opinion) also give background information... (please excuse my perhaps sometimes imprecise terms as English is not my first language). --Judith M-S (talk) 06:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I can also see your point. Perhaps you could raise the question at the MoS:BIO talk page. The page isn't 100% clear on this point (and probably lots of other points). I can tell you what is says and how it's applied in other articles. The thing I can't tell you is why. So, if you ask the question there it's possible that other editors may respond. It's a little awkward with some celebrities, who often have a birth name, professional name, legal name that are all different. How do we cover them all? I don't know. It seems not to be an issue for women who become notable as married women so that their notability is linked to their married name. You ask an interesting question, and I wish I had a better answer. Rossrs (talk) 09:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Sharon Tate article

Hi:

I've been doing some editing on this entry, as I have many books about Sharon Tate, Roman Polanski and Charles Manson. I've also been trying to provide some citations where needed. However, I just want to point out that the citation request for the following line: "Tate reportedly provided ideas for some of the key scenes [in Rosemary's Baby], including the scene in which the protagonist, Rosemary, is impregnated," cannot be verified by any of the material that I have available to me. Furthermore, I have a copy of Ira Levin's original novel, Rosemary's Baby, and in it, on pages 116-117 (in the Signet paperback edition) is the rape/impregnation scene almost idential to how Polanski later filmed it for the movie version.

Poiluj (talk) 16:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)Poiluj

Thanks for adding some sourcing. I have a few comments. Rossrs is the editor mostly responsible for bringing this article to featured article status. He and I are planning on working on improving the citations for this article as soon as I received the Greg King book from interlibrary loan, in order to request a featured article reassessment to bring it up to today's standards. The writing in the article is still top rate, the changes in FA criteria are mostly concerning how sourcing is included. I'd have to note here that I'm not entirely comfortable with using the Ed Sanders book on the Manson family, there is some criticism about its reliability. Also, the Hollywood Haunted book is a bit worrisome regarding reliability. With all respect, I removed part of the uses of the Sanders book. I don't think the side story about Jean Harlow and Paul Bern really adds anything to the story of Sharon Tate's notability and for that reason, I decided to take it out. It's not something that I think FAR reviewers would consider important for inclusion. One thing the FAR people will request is page numbers. If you still have the Greg King book, perhaps you could add page numbers for the cites from that book? The only comment I can make about the Rosemary's Baby quote is that I didn't particularly think it meant that the entire scene was Tate's idea, I read it to say that she had offered some ideas on how the scene would be played. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I can respect your decisions as stated above. To be frank, however, I've never heard of any reliability issues with Ed Sanders' updated version of his book, The Family. And the references I included regarding Tate's incident at Jay Sebring's home have been well-documented, and I feel are interesting, as a Sharon Tate aficionado. But, who am I to argue? If you are planning on getting the Greg King book, as stated above, I invite you to go ahead and add the page numbers for the cites.

Thanks!

(Poiluj (talk) 23:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)) Poiluj

Sharon Tate's contribution. It's been a while but I didn't notice this. As best as I can recall from Polanski's biography, he felt that the book made it very clear that Rosemary was in genuine danger, but for the film he wanted to allow the audience to wonder if Rosemary was imagining everything. For that reason the impregnation scene was difficult, because it had to be shown, but as soon as it was shown, the audience would be in no doubt as to what was going on. Because this occurs relatively early in the story, this would reveal the "truth" much sooner than Polanski wanted. Polanski discussed it with Tate. Tate suggested that the scene be filmed as a "nightmare". The whole style of that section of film has a surreal kind of quality, and quite different to the rest of the film. It doesn't give the game away because it allows for the possibility that Rosemary is delusional, while remaining true to Levin's text. Rossrs (talk) 14:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Golden Laurel Award category name

In the article section, quote:

“ She placed fourth behind Mia Farrow, Judy Geeson and Katharine Houghton for a "Golden Laurel" award as the year's "Most Promising Newcomer" with the results published in the Motion Picture Exhibitor magazine. ”

the name of the category Sharon was running for is "Most Promising Newcomer". However, on the IMDB page that category is listed as "Female New Face".

---

Could somebody clarify that? I'm trying my luck with my first translation of an article for the Polish edition of Wikipedia. :) Thanks in advance! Bartteks (talk) 23:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what is "correct" but "Female New Face" seems to be more suitable, because the males are on a different list. "Most Promising Newcomer" should include both genders. I also think if we use "Female New Face" we can at least source it to IMDb. I've tried to find an official website for the Producers Guild which evolved from the Golden Laurels, but it doesn't give a history of past awards. Good luck with the translation. I hope it all goes well for you. Rossrs (talk) 08:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the opinion and the kind words! :) Bartteks (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The dozen paroles

There seems to be a slight imprecision in the statement:

As of 2009, Manson, Watson, Krenwinkel, and Van Houten remain incarcerated, each having failed to obtain parole more than a dozen times since becoming eligible.

The Wikipedia articles on Manson and Krenwinkel say that actually they each were denied parole exactly eleven times. Bartteks (talk) 00:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

You're right. The number of times they've applied and been denied is more relevant to their articles. I'll reword it here to :

As of 2009, Manson, Watson, Krenwinkel, and Van Houten remain incarcerated.

cheers, Rossrs (talk) 06:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

oops ....

How about :

As of 2010, Manson, Watson, Krenwinkel, and Van Houten remain incarcerated.

Another year in the slammer. Rossrs (talk) 06:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think that the information about the number of failed parole attempts was actually useful there. I just thought that the phrase "dozen or more" being not true (at least as I understand the word "dozen") it probably needed some amendment. Didn't want to dabble in it myself, but didn't think either that you'd get quite so radical :))

Considering that the Polish Wikipedia doesn't feature extensive articles on the individual perpetrators I think I will leave a mention about the parole attempts in my translation.

Thanks so much for the prompt reaction. Cheers! Bartteks (talk) 12:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the comment. Here's my concern - when these people apply for parole they do so individually, not as a group. I don't know exactly how many times each of them has applied but let's assume they've applied a different number of times. To be completely accurate we would have to say "As of 2009, Manson, Watson, Krenwinkel, and Van Houten remain incarcerated - Manson has applied 11 times, Watson 10 times, Krenwinkel..... " I'm giving numbers as examples, but I see it as awkward and unnecessary. If it was awkward and necessary, I think we should keep "awkward" rather than lose "necessary". I think the main point is that they're still incarcerated, and that's covered, whether they've applied 10 times or 50 times. That's just my opinion though, and if there is another way you would prefer this to be worded, nothing is carved in stone, and I wouldn't object if you changed it. I hope your translation is progressing well. If I could speak Polish, I'd help you with it.  ;-) Cheers. Rossrs (talk) 14:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

You're probably right about the information on parole attempts not being strictly essential in the article about Tate. But I think it can be an interesting piece of information and I'm inclined to include it in the translation, especially that, as I have mentioned, Manson and the "Family" are not covered extensively in the Polish Wikipedia (which, in a way, I don't consider a thing to cause serious concern, because to me those people were not much more than a bunch of monsters). I'm also in a relatively comfortable situation since the Polish language offers an adjective to cover quantities in the 11-19 range :)

Thank you for your words of motivation :) The translation is in progress. The tempo has dropped because I've been recently spending some time reading up on Manson here in the Wikipedia and in the referenced web sources, so I would get all the contexts right. It hasn't been a particularly pleasant read, but I'm nearly at the finish of my work on the subtitle about the arrest and trial of the gang.

Thanks so much for your support :) Bartteks (talk) 15:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. I appreciate that it's not an easy job or something you can do quickly. Rossrs (talk) 01:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Atkins' testimony before the Grand Jury

I'm still in the process of checking some facts for the translation, and this led me to read on the roles of the different perps. Unfortunately, I think I've stumbled upon an incongrousity between what this present article on Sharon says, I quote:

Atkins testified before the grand jury and admitted that she had stabbed Sharon Tate because she was "sick of listening to her, pleading and begging, begging and pleading".

and the information given in the article on Susan Atkins, as well as the transcript of Atkins' Grand Jury testimony (as presented [http://truthontatelabianca.com/index.php?topic=1212.0 here]), where she only mentions holding Tate down and where the particular phrase about "begging and pleading", or in fact anything to suggest that Atkins was made impatient and irritated with these kind of entreaties, is not to be be found (I skimmed over the relevant fragment of the testimony and I used the "Search within the page" browser feature to find any occurences of "beg" or "plead"). Bartteks (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE: I found the quote about pleading in the Wikipedia article on Susan Atkins: it supposedly refers to what the defendant stated later, during the trial. (I say "supposedly", because I didn't verify that). I believe it is understood that Atkins changed her version dramatically during the trial, as her as well as the other female defendants intention was to incriminate themselves in order to draw the responsibility away from Manson. Bartteks (talk) 21:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

This is difficult. I've seen the "pleading and begging" quote, but I can't remember where. I've gone through Vincent Bugliosi's Helter Skelter and Greg King's Sharon Tate and the Manson Murders and I can't find it referenced in either of them. It's not sourced correctly in either this article or Susan Atkins. In her Grand Jury testimony Atkins says that Tex Watson killedTate (although she had previously admitted stabbing both Tate and Frykowski), and says that she held Tate's arm while Watson stabbed her once in the chest. She doesn't account for the 16 stab wounds, only the one which she says was inflicted by Watson. I'll keep checking. Rossrs (talk) 02:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi again :) My translation took a slump, so it's only now that I'm getting back to inform you that this particular phrase about "pleading and beginning" and an assertion of having stabbed Sharon does appear in Atkins' testimony, but not in the one before the Grand Jury (where she certainly is far from trying to present herself as a cold-blooded killer), but in the sentencing phase of the main trial. Let me offer a longer quote:

I (Vincent Bugliosi -- my remark) asked her how she felt about the victims. She reponded, "They didn't even look like people . . . I didn't relate to Sharon Tate as being anything but a store mannequin."

Q. "You have never heard a store mannequin talk, have you, Sadie?"

A. "No, sir. But she just sounded like an IBM machine . . . She kept begging and pleading and pleading and begging, and I got sick of listening to her, so I stabbed her."

Q. "And the more she screamed, the more you stabbed, Sadie?"

A. "Yes. So?"

Q. "And you looked at her and you said, 'Look, bitch, I have no mercy for you.' Is that right, Sadie?"

A. "That's right. That's what I said then."

I can't say the exact page, but I know that this excerpt comes from "Part 8. Fires in your cities". Cheers! 91.142.201.27 (talk) 23:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You are correct. Somehow I went through that section and didn't see it. It's on page 581. I found it interesting reading through that section of the book. Atkins' comments and also Van Houten's comments about Rosemary LaBianco, and Krenwinkels comments about Abigail Folger are incredibly similar and very very cold. I love the end of the section where Leslie Van Houten says "Mr Bugliosi, you are an evil man." What ???? I'll go through and rewrite that section when I have a little more time. Thank you for spotting these mistakes and bringing them to the talk page. I keep telling myself it's time to go through the whole article and check/update all the sources. I will do it. Rossrs (talk) 04:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I've cut back the Grand Jury to a very simple sentence that she admitted stabbing Sharon Tate, which is the main point, I think. I've used a longer quote in the later section and specified that it was made during the penalty phase. The "begging and pleading" makes more sense as part of a larger quote, especially as the previous paragraph noted that she had pleaded to be taken away and murdered after giving birth. Rossrs (talk) 14:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

I'm sorry to be getting back only this late again. As to your new rewrite... I don't have many comments about it. It may sound silly, but to me reading about this gruesome murder has been something of an ordeal and an extended affliction. It was a real relief to have finished translating that section of the article.

I must say that the text of the entire heading looks a bit different in my version, because I felt obliged to incorporate information from other English Wikipedia articles to do with the subject of Manson murders. I did so because those articles either don't exist in Polish Wikipedia or are really short, and so the Polish Wikipedia reader wouldn't have the chance to get some of the more important circumstancial information from the related articles. (I already dread the prospect of having to substantiate those "borrowed information" with citations and references. ;)) Also, I've actually finished translating that bit before you made the rewrite.

OK, enough ranting. Going down to details... well, maybe I'm of a manipulative type, but I actually preferred the shorter version of the quote on the "begging and pleading". I think it makes more impact as embossing the blunt indifference and a nonchalance about killing a human being. In my version the quote comes in a close succession to that "I have no mercy for you" one (as a kind of exemplification of that mercilessness).

But, since we're at it, let me point to you that the wording that you give of that other quote -- i.e. "Look, bitch, I have no mercy for you. You're going to die and you'd better get used to it." -- doesn't seem to appear anywhere in Bugliosi's book. This exact wrding seems to be fairly common on internet pages, but none of them can be seen as quite reliable a source. As far as the Bugliosi's book is concerned, I found the following versions of that utterance:

- "Look, bitch, I don't care about you. I don't care if you're going to have a baby. You had better be ready. You're going to die, and I don't feel anything about it." -- this is from the way Virginia Graham related Atkins' jailhouse bragging that had eventually led to the arrests.;

- "I looked at her and said, 'Woman, I have no mercy for you.' And I knew that I was talking to myself, not to her . . ." -- this is from Atkins' testimony before the Grand Jury;

- "And you looked at her and you said, 'Look, bitch, I have no mercy for you.' Is that right, Sadie?" -- and this is from a question Bugliosi asks her during the trial, which she answers positively. There seems to be no other mention of that utterance in the book and since I haven't been able to find trial transcripts anywhere online it's been impossible for me to find Atkins' original statement comprising that quote.

OK, and now two more things regarding Atkins:

1. In your rewrite, it is said that Atkins' admitted to having stabbed Sharon in her Grand Jury testimony. This is actually incorrect both in view of the Bugliosi's book and the Grand Jury testimony transcripts that can be found [http://truthontatelabianca.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=4369e86a5c0de5460062a113d03e710d&topic=1212.0 here]. Atkins bragged in front of her inmates, but in her first time before a jury she tried to soften her profile somewhat, saying that she couldn't kill Sharon and only held her down, that she found it taxing to return to the house to make the bloody writings, etc.

2. I only now notice that the present article states that Atkins was offerred immunity from prosecution. Well, that is incorrect either, I think. I'd have to look up this bit, but I'm positive that the deal was she would get the prosecution's forbearance from seeking the capital punishment for her. (I've just found that I had taken this information from the Wikipedia article on Susan Atkins; the information is referenced to specified pages of the Helter Skelter book).

This is all from me on the subject for a moment. Once again, sorry for delaying my response. And once again sorry to be pointing out those things rather than making corrections myself, but I don't feel myself qualified enough to dabble in FA's at this point :). Cheers! Bartteks (talk) 15:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this may be more than one reply, so I'll just write what I can find, as I find it, and if I think of anything else, I'll visit again soon. In her LAPD interview, (Bugliosi listens to her taped confession), she admits to stabbing Frykowski but says that she held Sharon down while Watson stabbed her. Bugliosi notes that this is different to her jailhouse confession. (p. 226). Page 227, an offer of immunity is considered and rejected. Instead they agree that they will not seek the death penalty. (Will fix article on this point). Grand Jury - yes, she is playing innocent. She's not even sure if she stabbed Frykowski. She remembers swinging the knife and she hit something. It may have been Frykowski, or it may have been a chair. Atkins' quote will need to be changed - there is no consistency however I have another book that I will check before changing the wording. Atkins says she couldn't stab Sharon, so she created a diversion so that Watson doesn't notice, and she watches as he stabs her once. Bugliosi notes that Sharon was stabbed 16 times and that Atkins had said to Ronnie Howard in prison that she had kept stabbing until Sharon stopped screaming. So yes, I've got that wrong and I'll fix it. I'll go through the other book I mentioned, although I think Bugliosi's is more likely to be correct anyway. Don't be sorry for pointing out anything. I'm glad someone's looking closely at it and I'm happy to fix whatever needs fixing.

I can understand how overwhelming it can be going over these details. I did a fairly major rewrite of this article a few years ago, and the horror of it lingered with me long after I finished with it. I can honestly say that the case appalls me on so many levels, I couldn't even explain it. I empathise with your feelings. It sounds like you're getting close to completion. Rossrs (talk) 16:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Once again, thank you for your very kind words, Rossrs, and for all your support. Considering my own experience and what you say here, I'm made to feel regretful about putting you through the pains of returning to the awful details of that terrible crime. I'd never read the Bugliosi's book on my own accord, even though I admit that I consider it important to know about the Manson murders, and how mad people can work themselves up to be. It is also important to remember the victims. And it's impossible not to feel for Roman Polański. The man has gone through a lot in his life.

Yes, I am nearing the end of my work, but I will have to review and organize the first two headings of the translated article, as they were made by other people, and they appear to be in a somewhat makeshift form right now. Thanks again! Bartteks (talk) 20:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I've made some changes so I'll highlight them here.

1. Changed the part about Atkins being offered immunity to make it clear that the offer was only in relation to not seeking the death penalty.
2. Clarified that Linda Kasabian was offered immunity from prosecution. (Interesting sidenote, Bugliosi later discovered that Kasabian was willing to testify even without an offer, but her lawyer had her best interests at heart, and pushed for the deal.)
3. Changed the sentence about Bugliosi being glad the offer was withdrawn from Atkins. I can only find a comment in which he explains that Kasabian was the more likely to be believed by a juror and that personally he was satisfied because she had not killed any one.
4. Removed the "Look bitch..." quote. It seems to be other people quoting Atkins and Atkins saying "yes that's right". The essence is the same, and I think that's all Atkins was confirming, but the exact wording is unclear. Removing the quote conveys the main point, which is that Tate was told she would receive no mercy.
5. Removed one of two instances stating who killed Tate. The comments during the trial were as vague as during the grand jury. The statement during the penalty phase is more direct. I think I may have been relying too strongly on quoting Atkins, and it's not necessary. Rossrs (talk) 14:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the credits, Rossrs :) Well, I've been taking some time out from editing recently, and also I moved to the earlier part of the article to polish it (if you pardon the pun :)) there, so I have not much to say. But, briefly, I'm not quite sure about the statement that Sharon was the last to be killed. I'd have to check it, but I remember reading a comment somewhere criticizing it as a misconception There's always this version from the Grand Jury hearing (I believe) where where Atkins talks of them all having got out of the house (where Tex already had stabbed Sharon) to find Frykowski still crawling (I think that Abigail was also trying to move at this point)... Well, I'm only highlighting it now off the top of my head. Personally, I hate to be nitpicking in this matter -- it doesn't fit the nature of it. Bartteks (talk) 00:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Susan Atkins' made a stupid comment that was something like "Sharon was the last to die because she had to see the others die first". I'm drawing on memory and it may not be completely accurate. I say it's a stupid comment because Atkins didn't know Tate so why would she care if she was the first or the last? It's the type of off-hand, pointless comment that has a ring of truth. In any case, Frykowski and Folger were at least mortally wounded before Tate was killed, so even if they were clinging to life, in a real sense they were already 'gone'. There's a lot of misinformation, and contradictory information about that night and Atkins was particularly inconsistent in her comments. I honestly don't know, but it can be easily reworded, and I will do that. Rossrs (talk) 07:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The quote from Joan Didion

Yes, it's me and my problems again...

There's this quote from Joan Didion serving to illustrate how the killings at Cielo Drive impacted people and signified a moment of change. The problem is that I can't quite make out the meaning of the last two sentences. I'd be so grateful if someone could offer a simple interpretation. What was the tension? Does "broke" here mean that the tension subsided in the sense of having faded out, having become insubstantial or even improper in the face of what had happened? Or -- just the opposite -- was the brutal act considered as climactic relief release of the tension? And what's "the paranoia" that "was fulfilled"? Have there been popular fears that the age of freedom will bring people to act in a reckless and brutal way?

"Many people I know in Los Angeles believe that the Sixties ended abruptly on August 9, 1969, ended at the exact moment when word of the murders on Cielo Drive traveled like brushfire through the community, and in a sense this is true. The tension broke that day. The paranoia was fulfilled."

Cheers! Bartteks (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

My take on it is that the counterculture of the time was getting darker as it became freer and less inhibited and as it moved further away from the 'establishment' it was viewed with greater suspicion, not necessarily that it would end in brutality or violence but that the established norms of culture would be forever changed. It was a threat, but exactly what was being threatened was unknown. I don't think the breaking of the tension was a relief, and I see it more like a dam wall breaking and everything that had built up behind it, suddenly engulfing everyone. The paranoia was "fulfilled", I think partly means that the paranoia was vindicated or justified by the reality of what happened, but also that the paranoia had been a contributing factor. I'm going to ask someone else to comment. It's an interesting question. Rossrs (talk) 17:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

PS. I know your aim is to translate the intent of the quote into Polish, and that my comment does not point you towards a simple interpretation.  :-) Rossrs (talk) 17:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

May I jump in with an interpretation? I think she meant that human nature had finally intruded into the studied, middle-class-defined "good"ness that had been at the essence of the mainstream interpretation of the counterculture... the fact that it was defined by its middle-class participants indicated that its breaking moment would be representative of class-consciousness... theTate killings were a dramatic acknowledgement of its corruption that pleased its definers, artistically. The LaBianca killing even today are afterthoughts, artistically.

Joan Didion has always spoken from a privileged white intellectual POV, and at the time was living in Hollywood-Los Angeles, so that could be a guide.-- LaNaranja (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both very much for your help! Your interpretations are in fact very useful. Obviously, I'm going to have the quote translated as verbatim as I can, so it's a matter of me knowing what's being said, so as not to make some silly blunder and get the translation to suggest something different from what's intended. Speaking of blunders -- Rossrs, the expression "climactic relief" from my original posting must have looked really weird, and a bit worrying. It was a stupid error on my part: I intended to say "climactic release". I certainly couldn't think of that horrid tragedy in terms of a "relief" of any kind. I'm really sorry for my unfortunate lack of proper proof-reading of my posting, and for creating an unnecessary confusion.

Thanks again to both of you, Rossrs and LaNaranja. Bartteks (talk) 19:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. I don't think there is too much difference between 'relief' and 'release' but I did read through your comment a few times! I find LaNaranja's comments interesting. The LaBiancas are considered as afterthoughts. 'Artistically' the focus is on what happened at the Tate house, and the other murders committed by Manson follower's are somehow perceived, not necessarily as lesser crimes, but in the case of the LaBiancas the impact is less because their murderers failed to escalate the events of the previous night. Gary Hinman is also overlooked, and yet without the 'success' of his murder, would Manson have been inspired to do something 'bigger'? It would be interesting to read Dideon's The White Album from which the quote is taken, to place it into a larger context. She was acquainted with Sharon Tate, so is most likely personally invested to at least some degree, and also interviewed Linda Kasabian several times which again gives her a personal insight that other commentators may have lacked. I would like to read the whole piece. Her quote relates to the immediate reaction to the murder, and immediately after the murder, the perpetrators and the motives were unknown. This may have added to the tension and the paranoia, and it may have continued to build through the trials and even after. I asked User:Wildhartlivie for her opinion, and she replied here. Rossrs (talk) 01:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you once again, Rossrs! And I'm very grateful for Wildhartlivie's imput as well. The hippie era is something of an unknown to me, as I've never got to read much on that and all my knowledge about it is only the regular, superficial notions one gets from watching an odd movie or an odd documentary. I didn't have too much awareness of the darker side of the movement, people who engaged in social radicalism, (I'm actually counting Manson out of those, because he is apparently a mentally deranged man), and -- more than that -- I didn't quite realize the way the perception of those factions in the conservative community transposed into a more generalized distrust and division in the society. Through grappling with the translation I'm learning quite a lot myself, and I owe much to you for helping me out. Thank you again! Bartteks (talk) 13:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

link: "Sharon Tate - Venus on a Treadmill" article

Just wanted to report that the reference no. 7 has a broken link. The article in question is to be found on the net, but it's a reprint in a fan-blog. I wasn't sure how the Wikipedia policies read on this, so I refrained from repairing the link myself. Here's the site of the mentioned reprint: http://sensationalsharontate.blogspot.com/2009/07/venus-on-treadmill-article-and.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bartteks (talk • contribs) 23:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Keeping early history accurate

I came to this article from the article on Thomas Jefferson High School in Dallas, where someone had added Ms. Tate as being an alumna of that school. While the city of Dallas was one of the many places she lived in her youth, a check of newspaper databases shows nothing to suggest she ever went to that school. I did want to post here a citation that might be useful to others in the event more info on her teen years is added:

• Trish Long. "Slain actress Sharon Tate once lived in El Paso, attended Irvin High School," El Paso Times, Saturday, April 3, 2010 (no page number):

Actress Sharon Tate, best known for her role in "Valley of the Dolls," attended Irvin High School in the late 1950s. Her father, a captain in the army, was assigned to Fort Bliss. The family lived in Northeast El Paso for several years before he was reassigned to Verona, Italy, in January 1960.

On Aug. 9, 1969, Tate was murdered by the Charles Manson gang in California. She was married to director Roman Polanski and was more than eight months pregnant when she was killed.

An Aug. 12 Times article titled, "Slain Star Once Lived In EP, Attended Irvin," reported: "El Pasoans recalled Miss Tate as a very "vibrant, happy and beautiful young lady with very strict parents."

"Mrs. Buck Rogers said that her older son Tom Rogers now of Dallas dated Miss Tate during her high school days in El Paso.

" 'Tom went steady with her and only had kind words for her,' Mrs. Rogers said. 'Apparently her parents were very strict because Tom had to bring her back by midnight after a date,' she said.

"Mrs. Susan Rogers King said that Miss Tate had been a frequent visitor in the Rogers home. Even when she moved to Italy, she corresponded often with the Rogers family.

" 'I recall a letter she wrote one time in which she told us all about her introduction into the movie industry,' Mrs. King said. 'It seems that she was walking down the street in Verona one day and two producers, one named Ransahof, had discovered her and started her in the movies.'

"Mrs. C.L. Hatchel, the former Miss Pam Stratton, said of Miss Tate, 'Sharon was a real sweet girl. We ran around together and spent the night at each other's home,' she said. 'After her family moved to Italy, our friendship sort of dwindled and I only got a couple of letters from her then.'

"Mrs. N.E. Desper, neighbor to the Tates, said that Sharon used to babysit for her two children, Steve and Cindy. 'We enjoyed the Tates very much. Tate and my husband served together in the Army in California before our assignment in Ft. Bliss,' she said. 'In 1964, we visited them in San Pedro, Calif., but Sharon was in Los Angeles at the time.' "

This quote does not comprise more than half the article, so its posting here should not violate U.S. "fair use" copyright law. If at some point it is removed to comply with another country's copyright laws, please leave the citation information so that others may find it. Lawikitejana (talk) 21:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

FA concerns

This article has some concerning aspects for a FA quality article, namely referencing issues in some places, short lede/intro that does not conform to WP:LEAD, and could use an image review. I'd recommend working on these issues, or perhaps the best place to address them would be at WP:FAR. If users involved in the article's maintenance do not object, I could identify problem areas regarding referencing in the article, by adding {{fact}} tags. I notice that one book source in particular is used many times as a cite - but no page numbers are given. -- Cirt (talk) 17:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

By all means Cirt tag the problem areas you observe to have issues. Once that is done we can get work on fixing it. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I added a lot of the book references, and I can go back over anything you tag and add page numbers, but I am going to be away for several weeks. From about mid-December I'll be happy to help fix anything that has not been fixed in the meantime. I added most of the images and if they are of concern, I would really appreciate leaving that part of it until I get back, if that's ok with everyone else. Rossrs (talk) 00:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I've tweaked the King book refs to use {{sfn}} so you can just drop-in the page numbers; I can do this for the other sources you have, too (I see you added the King refs but didn't look at what others you did; tbd). I just did Polanski's book, too ;) Best wishes, Jack Merridew 17:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1