Talk:Alexandra Kerry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to actors and filmmakers on Wikipedia.
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.


Contents

[edit] flash

It's the use of flash. It sees through some materials. Just like you shouldn't wear white into the water, you shouldn't wear black where you're going to get flash pictures taken of you. I'm sure she had no idea the picture would look like this.

Sure makes it interestng to look at though! :)

Can I just say that it's a nice photo. I'm no liberal but I'd vote for her!!!

  • That is not the most flattering photo we could have chosen for a presidential candidate's eldest daughter. Although I assume we're in our rights to put the picture on the page, couldn't we find a more dignified one? --Ardonik 03:16, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)
    • After another reading, I suppose it is relevant to the article. That doesn't mean I have to like it. --Ardonik 03:19, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)
      • Anonymous user 67.180.24.204 just removed the image in question, calling it a "copyright violation" in the edit sumamry. Since both images were lifted from the same source, but the anonymous user conveniently forgot to unlink the other one, the edit was probably done out of prudishness. Whether it's a real copyright violation or not is still in question (it's probably valid under fair use), but lying about the reasons for an edit is not acceptable. I'm reverting the change, and explaining my revert on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. --Ardonik 05:20, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)
It was me, and I'm no prude. (My motivations are irrelevant in any case). I didn't know the source of the other picture. But the source of the one 'naked' one is explained above in Talk. It's a wire service photo taken by a commercial photographer. We have no more right to use it for free than does the NY Times or Washington Post. If the other picture is also taken by a commercial photographer, it should also be removed. Just because we would like a free picture, does not mean we get to grab whatever we want. Anybody who wants to get jollies of Alexandra's jugs can just Google it. But Wiki policy is to respect copyright.

[edit] Picture, picture.

After a little research both pictures are in fact "copyvio" because they were taken by a commercial photographer. The photographer was charging a pretty hefty price for the picture when it was first released so remember, copyright law allows for up to 3 times the damages! Also note, I removed the link to the [Snopes page on the dress because it isn't even factual. From the page:

Claim: Photograph shows Alexandra Kerry in a see-through dress.
Status: True.
"The family members of politicians don't generally receive this much exposure, but Alexandra Kerry — daughter of Masschusetts senator and presumptive 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry — did in May 2004 when she attended a Cannes Film Festival event wearing the sheer, translucent black gown pictured above."

She wasn't wearing a "translucent" dress... we've covered this before. The dress looked that way when the flash hit it... jeez JoeHenzi 23:15, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

just by way of reference, note that jenna bush's bare breast incident was was purged from wikipedia. Wolfman 22:02, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Good point. This should be too, especially the links to the pictures. Do we have links to the topless pictures of Jackie O?--Cuchullain 02:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Should picture talk even be here?

Why is the stuff on this picture even in here? Seems pretty trivial to me. It was clearly little more than an embarassing situation, why should that be entombed in her encyclopedia entry? TastyCakes 03:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Trivial perhaps, but it did get mainstream media coverage, and so seems worth documenting in a tertiary source. I'd imagine any biography of her would mention the brief controversy. --Delirium 05:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I think this details on the picture should be removed. It was an embarassing incident that (giving her the benefit of the doubt) was no fault of her own, got a minimal amount of press coverage two years ago but would never have even made the papers if her father hadnt been in the process of running for president, and takes up roughly 40% of her enclyclopedia entry. Additionally, Alexandra Kerry is at best a minimal public figure and should be held to looser standards than others when it comes to slip ups like this. If it was Hillary Clinton or Barbara Bush, then maybe the story would have had a more lasting impact in the public consciousness, but this is old and barely notable. She has some credits to her resume that can be listed. Listing this just looks cheap. Caper13 22:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Removed. Minor embarrassing incident for marginal public figure. Not notable given that she has plenty of other biography items to include. It shouldn't have been included in the first place and only made it there due to partisan activities around an election. Unless John Kerry runs for president again I doubt anyone will have much interest in reopening this. The dust has settled and this has pretty much been forgotten.Caper13 16:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Kept. It got lots of media coverage and is the only reason people know who she is.
(dumb comment removed) -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Parents marriage and annullment of said marriage

Even though I am a little uncomfortable with including it, I think it is valid because the text lists her mother and father and the dates of their marriage indicating a divorce took place. If the marriage was later annulled, then the marriage never happened. Getting a marriage annulled after such a long period of time is highly unusual and requires a little bit of explanatory text to put it into perspective. Its kind of a weird situation, but if you are going to mention her parents, you almost have to include it. Not mentioning the annullment at all makes the marriage section incorrect.