Talk:Phoebe Cates/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Vandalism

Something needs to be done about Wahkeenah's constant vandalism of this article. They keep adding links to a celebrity nudity website which aren't necessary. 131.202.128.131 12:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Something needs to be done about you cowardly a-none accusing someone of vandalism just because we don't agree. Wahkeenah 02:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all links to a nude celebrity website are probably not appropriate for Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia, not a porn site. Stevenmitchell 10:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

TheSolomon 18:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC): Can we possibly find a picture of Phoebe Cates that doesn't involve her in a bikini and about to remove her top?  ;-)

  • Good luck. 0:) Wahkeenah 19:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I just added a tasteful picture of her from Drop Dead Fred. She's fully clothed. The picture really shows how pretty her face is. Grundle2600 13:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Exotic

I noticed there is a bit of a conflict about this descriptive word. Certainly she's exotic, but if I say it, its OR. If a source says it, its cited. The way to add it is not as original research, but as a cited statement. Such as: Frequently described as exotic (ref, ref, ref)

Here are some refs to get you started:

etc. Hope this helps! KillerChihuahua?!? 02:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed the reference mainly because it is just subjective and unencyclopedic. Also, we can't just parrot whatever is written on any old sub standard website. Arniep 15:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Those were to get started, thought I said that. Try the NYT (indirect): [1] or IMDB: [2] KillerChihuahua?!? 16:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter. That one user will revert it no matter what I say. Wahkeenah 17:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
As I said the problem wasn't really the source I just don't think it is encyclopedic to claim that she is exotic looking because her mother is Phillipino. The definition of exotic is subjective, a Phillipino would probably think that a european looks exotic. As an international encyvlopedia we should avoid racial stereotyping or applying the biases of a particular culture. Arniep 17:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I stand by my story, and I have had enough of you. Wahkeenah 17:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Its the mixed heritage - she looks a little exotic to Filipinos due to her Chinese and Russian heritage, exotic to Chinese because of her Philippine and Russian heritage, and exotic to Russians due to her Chinese and Philippine heritage. Its an unusual mix. Her mother was supposedly good-looking, I believe that's why she's mentioned more often. And yes, that's subjective, this is the talk page. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
That is a hypothesis, or, original research, so it is not appropriate to use that as a basis to add information to Wikipedia. Arniep 23:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
What's plain as the nose on your face is considered "original research" in this so-called encyclopedia. Begone. Wahkeenah 00:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, one more time: If I say it, or if Wahkeenah says it, it is original research. If we find some sources, then it is cited. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hence the citations footnoting every line of the article, ja? >:( Wahkeenah 01:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Whether somebody somewhere on the internet has said she looks exotic is not reason enough to place that information here. If we have a significant person like a film director, agent or prominent film critic (such as Roger Ebert) saying she is that would be different. Arniep 00:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not posting blogs here, Arnie. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Source: Askmen.com.[3] "You might remember this exotic beauty from '80s classics like Fast Times at Ridgemont High and Gremlins,..." KillerChihuahua?!? 01:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what the source is, it's only valid if that one user agrees with it. Wahkeenah 01:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
not so negative - please! Ok, of the sources I've found so far, the best IMHO are have an indirect from the New York Times review of Princess Caraboo, and a direct from AskMen. Surely we can find something more. The celebritynooz looks like it took its info from elsewhere, I have tried searching for excerpts but so far no dice. What have you found, Wakeenah? Anything substantial yet, or still looking? KillerChihuahua?!? 01:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
That's fine, if we have a critic saying she looked exotic we can say "xxx critic said she looked exotic in x", but I think that might look a bit odd on its own so we'd need to add a few more critic quotes (unrelated to the exotic "thing"). I don't think the askmen site is a credible source as it is obviously a "lads mag" type site that by definition defines women physically. Arniep 02:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Your real agenda is emerging. Actors trade on their looks to a significant extent, yet it is politically incorrect to comment on their looks. Typical Hollywood phoniness and hypocrisy. Wahkeenah 02:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) AskMen is a highly reputable site, but that's my opinion. Its certainly notable. Not sure how its reputation ranks with others. Their content includes financial, health, career, entertainment (including movies, gadgets, etc) and other information in addition to the "beautiful women" bit. I recommend their sexual advice articles to men I know; they are well written, accurate and informative, not at all what you might expect. They do tend to objectify celebrity women somewhat, although they do not cross the line into sex object territory so far as I have seen. Their "How to be a better man" includes Home Decorating and Etiquitte. I would prefer another source be found, as I have said. I am still looking, and would appreciate any help. As far as adding other descriptive phrasing, certainly if you find a source for something you feel is an addition to the article, add it. KillerChihuahua?!? 02:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Save your energy. That one user's agenda is firm, and he will not allow any comments on Phoebe's exotic beauty, no matter what the source. Wahkeenah 03:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
And suppose we locate several fairly reputable sources? Trust me, we'll put it in the article. I fail to see how Arnie attempting to take ownership of this issue has led to you allowing him to take ownership. This is Wikipedia, not Arniepedia. (no offense intended, Arnie, replying to what seems to be Wahkeenah's view of the situation.) KillerChihuahua?!? 10:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I have concluded that any further effort on this is a waste of your time and mine. Thank you for your support. Wahkeenah 12:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
As I said we just need a reputable source like a film director, agent or prominent film critic, not a lads mag or similar website which obviously places a sexual slant in commenting on female actors. Arniep 15:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Since when are someone's facial features a "sexual slant"??? It seems like the puritanism of the 1950s has returned. >:( Wahkeenah 15:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Please concentrate on the article, not the puritanism or lack therof of your fellow editors. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

At this point, it is unclear to me what the topic really is. Anyone who dares to say that her mixed-race facial features are "exotic" (which seems to me like a positive term) is labeled "sexist" or "objectifying". So this is a hopeless situation. Enough already. Wahkeenah 15:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I thought the topic was to find a sourced descriptive comment, or several, preferably using the word "exotic." Quite frankly, ignore the labels and libels committed on this talk page and focus on finding a reputable source in order to improve the article. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Quite frankly, I've had enough of arguing with that one user, and am taking this page off my watch list. Wahkeenah 16:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Just to throw in my two cents, I think she's fairly attractive but of a fairly ordinary sort and not exotic at all. Шизомби 16:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

celebritymoviearchive.com

I removed this link again for a number of reasons. It's a commercial site, with a nice sign up button. It's not needed for the article, there already is an image for that scene in the article. Most likely it's a copyright violation, the link to a video of that scene. Garion96 (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Theoretically, individual frames are fair use. I dub thee a prude using the spam argument as an excuse. Wahkeenah 00:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
fair use on wikipedia. Not on that site. But I am not an american lawyer, so could be wrong. Btw, it's the first time ever I've been called a prude. :) Garion96 (talk) 01:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
There's a first time for everything, son. One question: Why do we have the "tease" photo (most likely lifted from that same site) while not showing the rest of it? You should zap the whole thing. Wahkeenah 01:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't care less if she was completely naked in the main image. Others might though. I just think that link to that site is pointless. Garion96 (talk) 01:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
It's a way of showing someone who wants to see it without slamming it in their face. It's a harmless site. But it's plain to see you're going to revert it regardless, so you win. Wahkeenah 02:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Lousy photograph

Could somebody please use a better photograph than that? I can't really tell who that is. It needs a good headshot.

Dino213aa 16:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

"Iconic" picture

Image:Phoebe Cates Nude Cut 1 - Fast Times At Ridgemont High.jpg Phoebe Cates in Fast Times at Ridgemont High

Someone other than "Belly Flop Patrol" who was not editing the Toplessness article two minutes before changing this one [4] and calling my revert "vandalism" might have a case about the topless image being "iconic". Until such person comes along though, that image stays off the article. -- «klaus»

  • I would have to call her topless scene iconic. It is on the Fast Times at Ridgemont High page, and if you look at the Trivia section on the page you will see it says, "According to the DVD extras, many video store owners reported that their copy of the VHS video of the film had tracking errors during Phoebe Cates's topless scene. The owners presumed this was caused by customers continually rewinding and playing the scene over and over again." Wonder if that can happen with DVDs? Don't be such a prude, and trust me there are a lot of people who remember her for this scene and nothing else. Spring3100 21:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I would say it's here most famous scene, but we could be discrete. --evrik 16:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Why be discrete? Have you ever read: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored? The image is very relevant to the content! Belly Flop Patrol 00:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I'm not going to get into an edit war with "Belly Flop Patrol". This is not about censorship, it's about simple taste. But hey, if you think an old blurry picture of Phoebe Cates topless increases the encyclopedic value of the article, go for it. -- «klaus»
  • The picture is titillating. It is fuuny. It doesn't really add value to the article. --evrik 19:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment...and it can't be used in this article anyway because it is a copyrighted screenshot from the movie. Under fair use it can only be used in the article about the movie, not in the article about Phoebe Cates... I've removed the current image in this article as well for this same reason.--Isotope23 00:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Hah! =) -- «klaus»
  • I read it diffrently. It is fair use to use it on this page and you are just censoring because you are afraid of tits! Belly Flop Patrol 19:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, #1... WP:AGF Belly Flop Patrol... and don't be an ass. You may read it differently, but that means you are reading it wrong. No screenshot image from the movie should appear on this page, topless or not. Find a publicity photo and post it up here.--Isotope23 11:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I won't speak to the legal copyright stuff, but I actually came here to find out how Wikipedia represents this "iconic scene". I never watched this movie, but "the scene" is what people have talked to me. That's my $0.02. Royalbroil 20:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

notable role

Based on imdb information on USA gross, and on general longevity and notoriety of the films, gremlins is clearly the more commonly appreciated performance. [[5]] [[6]] --Brideshead 17:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Phoebe didn't really do that much acting or have much dialogue in Gremlins. I think Drop Dead Fred and Princess Caraboo are the movies where most of her fans fans would claim she does her best acting.Grundle2600 22:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding third child 'rumors'

Rather than repeat here what I posted to the Kevin Kline talk page, I hope a link there will suffice in assuring editors that any references to a third child besides Owen and Greta should be ignored and not included in the article: Talk:Kevin Kline#Just a note about the number of children 68.53.58.159 (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

is Phoebe dead?

sorry for the thought but I was just wondering where phoebe is now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.194.62.100 (talk) 10:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Model

Wasn't Phoebe Cates a model at one point? There is no mention of it in this article at all, with the exception of "categories" at the bottom. Stevenmitchell 10:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Main picture

Although that is a popular picture of her,maybe we should use a more recent photo.Her face kinda changed. 71.169.26.98 02:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Why did someone change the subject's professional identity?

Despite twenty-three years of marriage, there is no empirical (nor citable) evidence that Phoebe Cates (nor any studio on her behalf) has billed her(self) as "Phoebe Cates Kline." The article should reflect her professional identity. ElectricCatHerder (talk) 05:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no reason for this move. A mention in the article is fine, in the same manner as Jennifer Garner, Sarah Michelle Gellar as some examples. Will move back to orginal name. Msw1002 (talk) 16:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
According to the move log, it was moved based on this link. Info from the store she owns. Garion96 (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I added this source to the "Personal Life" section of the article. As noted, Wikipedia articles are mentioning the married name of actresses (if applicable) within the article, but keeping the article name under the better known as name. Examples: Jennifer Garner, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Demi Moore, Salma Hayek, etc. Msw1002 (talk) 20:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Untitled

Any particular reason Wiki makes a big deal of somebody being Jewish- its a whole paragraph on her. Over and over..its even a category of slices of Jewishness. Nobody is part black on Wiki! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.116.55 (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Children

There seems to be confusion about whether or not Autumn Belle Kline really exists. Appears in the info box but not in the main text, and the internet doesn't provide any convincing evidence either way. Anyone feel like chasing this down? Rwintle (talk) 16:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Phoebe Cates. 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) 01:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Phoebe_Cates/Archive_1&oldid=842001990"