Talk:Gerri Santoro
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Page creation
[edit]If anyone can add anything to this article please do so. The information I was able to find on her was quite limited. Thanks!Trcrev 19:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- Done. Thanks for starting this article! -Severa (!!!) 22:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
- Absolutely. I was shocked there wasn't one on her on here already... Thanks for fleshing it out!! Trcrev 19:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- You're welcome. I learned a lot I didn't know before by working on this article. -Severa (!!!) 16:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- Absolutely. I was shocked there wasn't one on her on here already... Thanks for fleshing it out!! Trcrev 19:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Pictures
[edit]I have photographs of Gerri (before she died). I don't see an option for uploading, though. FemDem
- The image-uploading function is linked to in a "toolbox" table on the left-hand side of the Wikipedia layout (click here). However, I advise that you read WP:COPY and Wikipedia:Image copyright tags before uploading anything, as, generally, only uncopyrighted, public domain, or fair use photographs are allowed to be used Wikipedia.
- Also, if anyone is of a mind to insert the post-mortem photograph, please see the archived discussions regarding graphic photos at Talk:Abortion. Thanks. -Severa (!!!) 20:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
No, the postmortem photo can be found easily enough through other sites. These are just family photos. Would that be a problem here? --FemDem 09:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- I wouldn't be sure. I'm not entirely sure which license would work for photos which are between 50-70 years old. Probably fair use, if anything, but check out the copyright pages above for more information. -Severa (!!!) 19:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
THE picture
[edit]Should THE picture be included on this page? Assuming, of course, that it's fair use. I reviewed the abortion picture talk page you linked to, Severa, and am thinking that the discussion there is only distantly related to Mrs. Santoro. This woman is known because of that picture... I initially withheld it because I thought it was too graphic for some and thought that a link to the picture would suffice for the curious. However, considering that wikipedia is not censored, shouldn't it be included in the article? It seems almost juvenile to not include it... I tend to think the debate on the abortion site seemed to be centered on the political "shock value" of the photos possibly included... Maybe that same argument applies to Mrs. Santoro, though i wanted to raise the issue, at least. Thanks! Trcrev 17:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Image use policy contains an important caveat: "Do not upload shocking or explicit pictures, unless they have been approved by a consensus of editors for the relevant article." So, basically, we should discuss the inclusion of a graphic picture beforehand. We should weigh its relevance to the topic against a number of things, such as NPOV, notability, and readability.
- Graphic pictures of aborted fetuses are a routine suggestion at Talk:Abortion, but, this is the first time which I recall someone as having suggested adding a graphic picture of a woman who died from illegal abortion. If the precedent against graphic photos on abortion-related articles applies to one type of photo, it should hold true for another, to ensure neutrality. The long history of discussion at Talk:Abortion should be taken into consideration here. -Severa (!!!) 17:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- I definitely don't want to come off like I'm advocating the inclusion of THE picture for gratuitous reasons... or even for shock value. The only reason I propose it is because it is simply because of this picture that this woman is included in this encyclopedia at all. It definitely is an extremely disturbing picture and is easy enough to get outside of wikipedia- and I don't necessarily want to be responsible for this picture being seen by children... however this picture was published in a mainstream magazine and pasted onto cardboard signs held aloft at rallies... seen by thousands (millions?)of people. I just don't want to shirk our duties as editors here because the picture was too shocking- especially considering that the picture is the most relevant thing about this article... I don't have anywhere near the amount of experience in Wiki that you do, Severa. For the most part I'm totally comfortable with going with what you feel is appropriate. Is there any way to get this question out to more people? Or is just up to me and you? Trcrev 19:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Assuming it's fair-use, of course... Trcrev 19:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- The same fair use criteria applied to other well-known, historic photographs, such as The Falling Man (man jumping out of one of the Twin Towers on 9/11) or Phan Thị Kim Phúc (naked child running after a napalm attack during the Vietnam war), would probably apply here. Certainly, those articles feature unsettling photographs, so I know it doesn't seem logical not to include the photograph. But, there's the precedent from Talk:Abortion, and it wouldn't seem fair to have a double standard. Of course, consensus might change, but I don't think editors at Abortion would be eager to retread the topic so soon after we've already retread it. I know that the picture isn't relevant only due to the connection to abortion, but, that article might be a good place to ask around. As it is, the picture is linked to on an external web site, so it's currently available from Wikipedia. -Severa (!!!) 15:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Let's not include the picture? People can easily find it on Google or via external links (perhaps the one that has it can be better marked) or if necessary we could include a linked picture (no thumbnail). Nardman1 03:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- The picture is disturbing, as it was intended to be when published by Ms. Magazine, what can only be described as a mainstream publication. I could not think of an image that could be any more relevant to the subject. This article loses most of its meaning without the image. Alansohn (talk) 05:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- She is only famous for the photo, to delete it is silly. Its black and white and shows her butt cheeks, hardly explicit when we have photos of penises and labia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- I have no real opinion on the image, and only removed it per the image policy and the above discussion, which is clearly in favor of exclusion. If it is to be included, it certainly should not be the first image in the article, but instead included within the section where it is discussed. - auburnpilot talk 14:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- I support the move of the picture. The rest of the article provides the necessary context. Alansohn (talk) 15:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- I have no real opinion on the image, and only removed it per the image policy and the above discussion, which is clearly in favor of exclusion. If it is to be included, it certainly should not be the first image in the article, but instead included within the section where it is discussed. - auburnpilot talk 14:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Cleanup?
[edit]There are tons of links on this page... I was thinking that the following ones seem to be a little extraneous: "farm" "bus stop" "american" "aliases" "textbook" "maid" "prison" "sentenced"
Just a thought... Trcrev 19:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- It's customary to link a person's nationality in biographical articles (see J. R. R. Tolkien, a Featured Article). I removed links to basic nouns per WP:CONTEXT, including "bus stop," "textbook," "maid," and "prison," but left "farm," given that agriculture has changed since Santoro's day (thus a link adds historical context), and "pseudonym" and "Sentence (law)", because these are concepts which might be unfamiliar to some readers. -Severa (!!!) 18:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
New Pic
[edit]Just added a new picture. First time uploading a picture, so it looks a bit sloppy. Hope you guys could fix it; or, I'll fix it later when I have time.MrZhuKeeper (talk) 01:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- I removed the picture, because I noticed the discussion above, in which there is no consensus for including it in this article. Please discuss further here before reverting. --Sfmammamia (talk) 02:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
The image
[edit]is really disturbing and disgraceful for the subject.. Do we really have to keep the image? (I know it went up for a deletion discussion, and her notability only comes from the image though)--Caspian blue 23:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, it's not the first thing you see when you open the page and the first sentence makes it clear that the photo is shocking (and implies that it can be expected further down in the article).
BTW someone should place the whole story in context, what were the US abortion laws during this time? Was it not allowed at all, or only in certain circumstances which made it unavailable to Ms. Santoro? These questions come up naturally when someone reads the article, the info should be included. – Alensha talk 20:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Picture of Gerri Santoro alive
[edit]Is it possible to include a picture of Gerri Santoro alive? This was a human being and not just a symbol of the abortion rights movement.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I am for the inclusion of both alive and dead.
Btw, the recent (2019) US abortion laws brought me here.
I removed the photo of her body.
[edit]The image was extremely dehumanizing and disgraceful to her. Gerri Santoro was not only notable for the sight of her bloody corpse, but for the role her daughters have played in the American abortion rights movement since her death. I might be on board with returning the image of her body to the article once we can find an image of her alive, following this site's image use policy. I would add it myself, but I am not certain that the one provided in this article [[1]] suffices.
Since the last entry in this talk page was nine years ago, I don't think there is a strong controversy over it right now. Please don't put that image back in the meantime, however. Spacemarine10 (talk) 03:28, 7 June 2023 (UTC)