Talk:Gordon Parks

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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Philipxgarcia.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flipped Photo?[edit]

There was the following edit made, "02:42, 8 March 2006 SteveHopson (Edited photo for better use illustrating article...," which consisted of cropping and flipping the photo from left to right. Editor SteveHopson has made many, many excellent contributions to the Gordon Parks article, but I do have to question flipping the photo. For comparison, see history version "02:36, 8 March 2006" by user "Crunch". There is no question that cropping the photo has given greater emphasis and visibility to Gordon Parks. Cropping is a generally accepted journalistic and editorial tool to give a better view of the subject matter.

Photo flipping is primarily used as a stylistic tool to make the subject of the photograph, or in this case, the person face the article. It's use in photojournalism is questionable as it gives a false appearance, i.e. making a right handed person appear to be left handed, etc.. In this case, it makes a large wart on the right side of Parks' nose flip to the left side of his nose in the current "SteveHopson" version. Perhaps, Parks was "dual-warted"? Many times, photo flipping from right to left can be identified in print journalism by small asymmetric objects in the photo, i.e. military uniforms with insignia on the wrong side, men's shirts with a single pocket on the wearer's right side, small written objects, automobile photos, etc.. It would appear to me that the use of photo flipping in an encyclopedia article should not be allowed.--TGC55 13:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Point well taken on the photo flipping. I have returned the photo to the original orientation. SteveHopson 15:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, as I still had the article on my computer when you made the orientation change, when I hit the refresh button, Parks just flipped left to right. --TGC55 12:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On 8 March 2006, User:Andibrunt created . The file history indicates that the photo was cropped and flipped from the original photo . I have asked user Andibrunt on his de talk page to reverse the flipped photo.--TGC55 (talk) 16:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can hardly remember that I've uploaded that photo, but as both above discussion and the reference to User:SteveHopson suggests, I'd just transferred the cropped and flipped image from en to commons, not knowing how the image was actually modified (see also log)
Sadly I don't have any program to unflip the , so if anyone else can do this and replace the image at commons with the new version, I'd be very graceful. --Andibrunt (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article[edit]

This article is looking really great. Parks was an amazing man and I'm proud to have contributed to this biography. Hopefully, this is a fitting tribute.

Now what I think we need to work on most is improving our documentation. SteveHopson 01:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Porno novel?[edit]

Back in the days of the late 60s, early 70s, when visual porn of every stripe hadn't yet driven the written stuff off the market, I had a paperback porn novel whose title escapes me that involved, at least in part, photography. I'd never heard of Gordon Parks at the time, but I then ran across a reference somewhere saying that he was the guy who had written this book under a nom de plume. As I recall, the book did have more about character and general novelistic stuff than the average porn book of the epoch. Any confirmation of this? I didn't see an reference to it in any of the obits. Hayford Peirce 18:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

F Word?[edit]

In the film section, where it talks about his writing for television, the F word show sup in the middle of the word "television". Any idea how to get rid of this?

~~anon~~

"jesica simpson"[edit]

I'm thinking this is not true/relevant.

12.145.108.11 19:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)anon12.145.108.11 19:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Shaft Movie.jpg[edit]

Image:Shaft Movie.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality?[edit]

This article seems extremely biased toward Parks. It sounds like a fan page. Just state the facts and stop speaking as if you admire the man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.77.111.131 (talk) 09:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most biography is by "fans." That said, I'm not a big fan of Parks, and have criticized his involvement with "blaxploitation," and have deleted seemingly laudatory remarks not backed by any directly cited online source. My own recent additions have been an attempt to simply reflect the historic record, particularly from official sources (National Archives, Library of Congress, Smithsonian Institute, public universities, etc.). Parks' work -- for better or worse -- was enormously influential in his prime, as most fans and critics, alike, would agree... if they're familiar with his work and times. And the influence of many of his works continues today, as witnessed by the frequency with which they are used -- or cited as influences -- by significant parties today.
~Zxtxtxz 04:08, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Zxtxtxz (talk) 04:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
if the reliable sources are admiring, then we need to reflect that fact. it matters less what you think, dear ip editor. much less fawning than the average pokeman article. Duckduckstop (talk) 20:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, Duckduckstop, but are you addressing me, or the anonymous poster who started this topic?
~ Zxtxtxz (talk) 02:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA nomination[edit]

i'm going to nominate this for GA, since the revscore indicates it.[1]. i trust User:Zxtxtxz has it in hand. Duckduckstop (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The revscore indicates a prediction of B, with B at 50% (GA only 12%), and the article has two significant problem templates on it. The nomination would be quickfailed at GAN, so I'm removing it. You might want to ask the WikiProjects whether their current assessment of C-class should be revised upward to B-class, but it may be that the issues in the problem templates need to be addressed in order to qualify for B-class. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gordon Parks. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 08:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gordon Parks. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 10:09, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gordon_Parks&oldid=1194817316"