Talk:Tara Subkoff

Notable
Apparently other people have actually heard of her...!? Maybe we can add more biographical detail with citations?

Request for Comment: Explicit Photo
There is a dispute about the topless photo of 3 models currently in the article. 01:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

David, do you have her (and the other two women's) permission to use that photo? How does that work? I understand that if she was in a public place that you can take the photo, and you own the rights to the photo, but, you can't publish the photo without their release, can you? Atom 17:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Statements by editors previously involved in dispute
 * I own the photo - it was taken by me, which is exactly what it says on the image details. I don't really wish to spend any more time educating you, since my time is limited.  --DavidShankBone 17:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What you can photograph and what you can publish; these photos meet all guidelines. --David Shankbone 04:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't even think that the explicitness needs to come into it--the photo doesn't really show what she looks like, it shows what her breasts look like. I think we could definitely find a better photo, and one that would be less offensive.  Although there's no policy against nudity on wikipedia, many people are not supportive of explicit photos and nude photos of identifiable people whose permission has not been obtained.  See  Identifiable people in explicit photos and  Pornography. I also don't think it adds anything to the article to have a nude photo.  It's not like she's a nude performance artist or anything, she's a normal actress and a fashion designer.  Was she changing in that photo?  It doesn't look like part of the public show. --Hurtstotouchfire 01:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The photo is of Subkoff's Imitation of Christ show. It is a piece that Subkoff, as the designer, designed.  It would be similar to having a painting on the Roy Lichtenstein photo or, say, a pregnant skinned woman on the Damien Hirst page.  It is Subkoff's art.  It is part of her show, and there are about four photographs from it under Tara Subkoff on the Commons.  They're just breasts, which hardly qualify as porno. And if anyone needs to see how public these photographs are, they are welcome to do a Google image search under "Imitation of Christ", Subkoff's label. --DavidShankBone 01:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look like Imitation of Christ is an underwear line to me: Current Collection. Where exactly was this photo taken at the show, David?  It looks like a dressing room shot to me. --Hurtstotouchfire 01:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The photo was taken as part of the show. YOu can see copyrighted photographs of the show here and here.  I attended the event, and you can find my photographs of it here:  http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Tara_Subkoff

--DavidShankBone 01:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * For others reference, Subkoff's shows are often quite outlandish (see this summary of one of her shows). However, I've tried a variety of searches and have not found any other explicit photographs of Subkoff or of models in her shows, so it doesn't seem that this show was representative of her work. I still think that another image would be more appropriate. --Hurtstotouchfire 01:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know if either you or I are authority enough, or care enough to research, what is and is not most representative of Subkoff's shows. But these photos were from her Spring 2003 collection, the show is something she designed and thus meets Wikipedia criteria for inclusion.  You are welcome to obtain other open-use photos such as the ones I've provided that will not assault your sensibilities, such as these breasts apparently do, and put it up.  Until then, it is like arguing the pregnant, skinned woman sculpture on the Damien Hirst page is not representative of his work since he mostly paints.  --DavidShankBone 01:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's my general thinking:
 * The article is on Tara Subkoff. The photo is not of Tara Subkoff herself.  She is both an actress and a fashion designer.  The photo is not a photo of her, it is a photo from one of her shows.  The show featured women in panties and heels mimicking in housecleaning activities.  The photo in question doesn't actually show the vacuums (which is why it took me so long to figure out that it's not a dressing room shot), so it's not even a representative shot of that particular show.  The article would do better with a photo of Subkoff herself.
 * The photo doesn't "assault my sensibilities"--I don't personally have any issues with public nudity. However, there are laws about obscenity. I think they're stupid, but that doesn't make them any less real.  All it takes to convict someone of public obscenity is to prove that the subject matter somehow offends the "community".  The internet doesn't get much slack from said laws because it's impossible to define who the community is.  However, there's no reason to taunt fate unless the possibly-offending image adds information to the article.  I think that the show in question was a thought-provoking, visually attractive show, and that the particular image doesn't do it justice, nor does it add to the article.  I think it should be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hurtstotouchfire (talk • contribs) 20:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC).
 * As a law student, I can tell you that breasts are not considered "obscene" and Wikipedia is not edited and censored based upon worries about what is obscene or not. You should check out the Ejaculation and Breast pages.  On the Roy Lichtenstein page there is no photograph of Roy, but of his work.  An image of the person, indeed, would be good to have, but it's not an either/or proposition.  If a Subkoff photo was produced, it would not mean that a photograph of her work needs to go as well. I will create a gallery of images in the article from the show, instead of having one out as the lead, in an effort to compromise. --DavidShankBone 20:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your willingness to compromise. I think that having explicit photos on the article is less controversial if it's made clear what they contribute, and it wasn't particularly clear that the photo was of models in Subkoff's show, before.  So I think this is an improvement.
 * You're correct, wikipedia does not censor. Like I've said several times now, the level of offensiveness should be weighed against how much the offending item adds to the article.  For instance, the Goatse.cx article doesn't have the famous Goatse.cx image on it, even though it's definitely pertinent to the article. There was a big debate, and people eventually decided to link to the image instead of posting it.  It's not always just a matter of legal issues, it can also just be a matter of access.  Many people surf the web from behind content filters.  And if you've ever tried to surf that way you know that content-filters are absurdly sensitive sometimes (though luckily not thorough).
 * I think that linking to other pages that have images of a wider variety of Subkoff's shows adds more information than posting images from the one show (that we know of) that includes extensive nudity. Given that there are no other images for the article at this time, I won't remove the current gallery. I think most people would agree that breasts are among the least obscene examples of explicit imagery, but I think it's still wise to be cautious. --Hurtstotouchfire 22:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think your concerns are fair; however, that no images are currently available I think the gallery works well. I will keep my eye open for Subkoff and IOC for more.  I would hesitate to compare a few breasts flying around to goatse.cx - very different categories.  I know that wasn't your point, but still...  Have a good one, Hurts.  --DavidShankBone 23:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we should just leave it to be,she is not fully naked!I think we should just find a photo for the info box instead!I seen around here on Wikipedia,articles that show an image showing a naked man and woman naked that's worse,here it is only bare breasts add a naked man and that's a problem to dispute about!(71.96.240.166 09:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)).


 * With all due respect for Wikipedia's guidelines of decorum, this Shankbone guy is simply a careerist scumbag who is using Wikipedia to further his budding photography career in case he fails out of the law school he supposedly attends. Does anyone really think that an article on Tara Subkoff needs to be illustrated by FOUR pictures of NON-TARA SUBKOFF humans? Even four photos of Subkoff herself, or even two or three, would be excessive on Wikipedia, considering her level of importance. I would love to see him provide actual proof that he got consent from these exact nude models to have their pictures placed online for the world to see. He claims that the fact that he "owns the photo" means he has total permission to disseminate the photos to the world.  And he calls himself a law student?  He'd be laughed out of any law or pre-law class for saying that.  Oh wait, my bad: He already told us, "I don't really wish to spend any more time educating you, since my time is limited."  His time is far too important to spend on us.  Remember, Wikipedia users: he is our educator, not vice versa.    Whenever someone keeps doing something that completely defies logic and respectability, ask yourself: What does that person have to gain?  In Shankbone's case, the answer is: If these nudie pics of his are taken down, he loses his little patch of real estate on the web which serves as a resumé, while he posits himself here as some sort of sub-Larry Flynt anti-censorship crusader.  As for comparing his pictures to the picture at the Ejaculation entry, guess what?  It's a date-obtaining device posted by the photographer of his own penis and perfectly-shaved torso, under idealized lighting, disguised as a scientific illustration. Anyone who can't see that is even more dense than our little Wishbone here. As for Hirst, if an article on him were illustrated only by four photos of one piece of his art, or four photos taken of Hirst himself, all taken on the same day, that would be simply ludicrous; so how is this m.o. applicable to an article on a fashion designer/actress?   I agree with everything that user Hurtstotouchfire laid out against keeping these four nudie images up.  The ironic thing is, I decided not to remove the photos, settling on just putting a disclaimer next to them.  But after Shankbone IMMEDIATELY REMOVED MY DISCLAIMER, as he has done before, he really touched a nerve/ enraged me beyond description, so now I've decided to methodically remove the pics every chance I get, and possibly even report this to Subkoff's lawyers.  (You know, actual lawyers, not law students.)  He has made no effort to "compromise," as he stated that he would in his post on Feb. 5th. The fact that pervy guys with no interest in Subkoff or her "work" will always chime in on this page in favor of keeping the photos posted is so obvious as to simply go without saying, and should not be interpreted as reason enough to keep them up. The only sadder part is that he probably derives great pleasure from watching himself being discussed on here, unaware how close his own Warholian 15 minutes are to expiring.  Chris77xyz 07:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Administrator's Notice Board: Request for block of Chris77xyz
This is the message I put on the Administrator's noticeboard regarding Chris77xyz's message above: Back in 2002 I took some photographs of Tara Subkoff's Imitation of Christ fashion show. One of the "vignettes" in the show was of models wearing a line of underwear vacuuming topless. Professional photographs can be seen on the highly-regarded Vogue Magazine's Style.com and Artnet Magazine. I put my photograph on the Tara Subkoff page (there is no Imitation of Christ page). Chris77xyz has some kind of issue with breasts and initially tried to add a disclaimer that they don't represent Subkoff's designs (as the links above to mainstream publications show, they do) and then tried to take them off. He is now threatening legal action, called me a "scumb bag" and "perv" and is threatening edit wars. The photographs aren't obscene, unless breasts are obscene (British editors/admins take note). These are clear cut case of violation of No_legal_threats and No_personal_attacks. I note I reverted his edits one time and he has never made any attempt to contact me. --DavidShankBone 15:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Biography assessment rating comment
The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Jreferee 20:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Response
1. Photo selection: On 3/15/07, I trimmed his four photos down to what I felt was the most representative one, even though trimming them to zero makes more common sense. What did I do to balance out this trimming? In the external links section, I added a link to Shankbone's gallery in Wiki Commons, which features all four pics. Hence anyone can see all four photos with the click of a button. "Chivalry is truly not dead," you say to yourselves. (I even left the gallery/centered HTML around it, so that it'd be positioned right in the center for all to see, not off to one side.) What does Shankbone then do? He adds his other three photos back, and slyly keeps the link which I had added to his pics at the Commons. His reasoning is that "One photograph in a gallery looks odd." He could have simply reverted to the prior version, but he looked over my changes and then only kept the one change that benefited him. He keeps talking about how he wants to compromise and work with other users, but every chance he gets, he puts himself above all other considerations and still refuses to cooperate. Why would he have even made the Commons gallery unless he understood that his photos were not main-article-worthy? He made the Commons gallery in the first place since he correctly reasoned that that was a better location for them. Now he has told me he will do his best to have me blocked from editing this article any further.

Back to what I previously brought up about him using this article for careerist purposes. Why did he put his full name in the title of each of the .jpg files he uploaded? (Roll your mouse over the photos, or attempt to download them to your hard drive, if you don't know what I'm talking about.) That's unheard-of. Unless, that is, he wants a lot of people to download them, and have his name conveniently attached in the file name, in case said downloaders ever want to contact the photographer and offer him $ to reprint them...

How can he get as many people as possible to download them? By making them as racy as possible, of course. The point is: He could have posted clothed pictures without his name in them. Or racy pictures without his name in them. Or clothed ones with his name in them. None of those possibilities would have raised the serious ethical questions that have been voiced here by multiple users.

2. Slant of article: Tara Subkoff is a professional actress. She designs (or designed, since IOC is apparently defunct) clothes on the side, though actually all she does is modify existing ones with the help of a partner. Her entire varied, and usually quite daring, 13-year film career is reduced to this line of text: "She has acted in over a dozen movies." (Technically, that counts as zero descriptive lines of her actual roles or of accolades she has received.) However, one fashion show of hers, which took place over maybe a 2-hour span at most, is represented by around two thirds of the descriptive text in this article. Does that seem right to anyone? I'd like for even one Wikipedia user to lay out for me how this is correct. Someone who had never previously heard of Subkoff would think that the U.S. media had some sort of frenzy over this one show she put on, and that her acting is so subpar as to deserve approximately 0.0 to 0.5 words per film role. (And 100% of the two "references" that he hastily added to this article are about this one-time event.) Shankbone has consistently and subtly altered the emphasis of this article towards proving his point of view, at the expense of doing Subkoff's career justice. In science, an experiment is never undertaken with the intent of molding the results towards proving one pre-desired hypothesis. Any scientist who does so is branded as a sham and generally stripped of his tenure/degree/etc. This is known as the scientific method, and has been followed for centuries. Wikipedia was designed to be laid out in a very cold and scientific manner, to dispense nothing other than actual facts about certain objects and entities. It's not an arena for positing one's own spin on objects and entities. If you don't like cold and non-biased data, then Wikipedia isn't the place for you. I often go to entries on my favorite bands/movies/etc. (and I'm even talking about ones that have drastically changed my life, or bands that I like enough to have interviewed them in the past) and delete anything with even the tiniest whiff of favoritism.

3. Style.com link: I went to the style.com link that Shankbone provided. This link simply reinforces my position. What it shows is 36 pictures of this event. The models are topless in 6 of the pictures. The models are fully clothed in 30 of the pictures. Tell me how Shankbone's four topless pics provide an accurate overview of this event. It is a clothing line, not a lingerie line. It behooves clothing designers to drape as much of their actual clothing as possible on every trot that their hired models take down the runway, since time, and flashbulbs, are limited.

4. Photo permission: He has still not given any sort of proof that he got clearance from the models, or from Subkoff, to post these photos. As somjeone who has taken photos at many concerts and such events for my online music zine, I know all about something called a photography permit, similar to a press credential; one has to not only predetermine that the performers will allow their pictures to be taken & distributed, but that the venue itself will allow it. Many performers and/or venues ask for a cut of the profits if the images are published. Did he somehow chat the models up after the show to make sure they were okay with this? Does he know Subkoff? Bands generally don't mind being photographed, but models are fiercely protective of the usage of imagery of them, since they, by definition, are paid to advertise clothing. If photos of models on a certain website help IOC to sell more clothing in the long run by trickle-down effect, then those models have every right to demand compensation. Can he give us the name of any one of these models?

5. Date; Breast photographer mindset: One would think he would at least get the date of the IOC show correct, yet he has changed it back to the wrong date over and over. (He says Fall 2003 in the main gallery, Fall 2002 in the Commons gallery. I actually corrected the main article date to Fall 2002 once; unsurprisingly, he rapidly changed it back to the wrong date.)  Doesn't this raise a red flag in anyone's mind that maybe Shankbone wasn't even the photographer of these pictures? And if he did take them, isn't it a bit telling that he snapped away only when the (beautiful, extremely nubile) models were topless? Or did he take lots of clothed photos, but deem them to be unacceptably boring? I've been to a lot of performance-art type events involving nudity, and the photographers who are there only to snap pictures when the clothes fall off are fairly easy to spot, and are generally shunned by "real" photographers. And I'm not even talking about the Mardi Gras breast flashing that everyone here (New Orleans area) grows up seeing. Shankbone says, "Chris77xyz has some kind of issue with breasts." Actually, I've been desensitized to them for almost 20 years, due to Mardi Gras and Bourbon Street, thank you very much. And even if I did have an aversion to topless girls, it would be better than Shankbone's aversion to fully-clothed girls.

6. Summary; Honoring Wikipedia code: Subkoff is an actress. She acts in movies for money. She did a clothing line as a side thing for a few years, and has admitted that it was mainly to poke fun at "serious" fashion designers/trends, rather than something she wanted to dedicate her life to. She and her partner merely modified previously-existing clothing; they did not design any from the ground up, meaning it was not even a very time-intensive hobby. But one user has decided that it is the defining essence of her life, and has decided to try to convince everyone else on earth of this, and has deemed a quartet of nearly-identical photos as necessary to achieve this end. Let me put it this way: There's a reason why serious novels never have illustrations, and why all childrens' books have them. Wikipedia is not a children's book. If an author's words cannot convey his viewpoint accurately, then he/she generally needs to go back to square one and try to come up with better writing. Sometimes words are worth a thousand pictures.

In short, any Wikipedia article should show a tendency towards neutrality and compromise. This one is a blatant abberation to that rule, and it is due to only one user. Yours truly has done nothing but try repeatedly to bring this article closer to neutrality, and I will continue to do so. If I did not, I would be an embarrassment to the entire raison d'etre of the site. In short, with his ability to present facts in a slanted manner so as to achieve a certain desired end, Shankbone will make an incredible lawyer someday. But he would make an atrocious judge. Wikipedia is a place where people with judge mindsets should oversee the proceedings, not those with lawyer mindsets. Why won't Shankbone leave up, say, one of his topless pics, add one clothed one from the same show, and let's have other people contribute photos of Subkoff herself, or screen caps from her films, or a celebrity wearing IOC clothing? Chris77xyz 08:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC) e


 * It sounds to me like Chris77xyz & David Shankbone have a bona fide pissing match here, which should probably be resolved through the proper channels (see: dispute resolution) rather than constant sniping at each other on this talk page.


 * That said, Chris77xyz has repeatedly made it clear that this page, and Shankbone, personally offend him, casting doubt on his own neutrality on the topic. More questions about Chris77xyz's neutrality stem from the fact that he rarely, if ever, uses citations in the widescale changes he makes to existing articles, hardly putting him in a position to judge other's neutrality and/or use of original research. Finally, I think it's worth noting that no official Wiki administrators, nor any experienced Wiki editors (with actual from-scratch, highly rated articles to their names) have voiced any complaints about this article's images. So, if the final decision were up to me, I'd say "the boobs stay in the picture."


 * On a related note, I do find it amusing that Chris77xyz has such a problem with so many naked female breasts being shown in this article, when the topic herself clearly has no reservations -- as seen in the abundance of naked female breasts at her shows. As evidenced in this article's pictures. Interesting, no? Just some food for thought. The Haiku Master 13:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S. It occurred to me that, in the interest of full disclosure, I should point out that Chris77xyz once heavily edited my sole "Good" article to date, Butthole Surfers, in a manner that I felt was detrimental to the piece. While it was undergoing Peer Review no less, and without any advance knowledge or consultation with other contributors. Since then, I've made a minor hobby of tracking his other contributions, many of which strike me (and other users) as disruptive and non-cooperative -- including his ongoing war on this article. Just didn't want any neutral parties thinking I'd stumbled across this debate and had no prior experience with either of the particulars. The Haiku Master 22:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

David Shankbone's Response to the Response
It's a little mind-boggling, to be honest, these long, bizarre screeds over four photographs. Out of around 700 photographs I have on this site, everything from skywriting to John Lithgow to lettuce to Angela Bassett, Chris seems certain he's "called my number" based on these four. With less than 500 edits on this site, Chris nevertheless fancies his ability to spot charlatans and--ahem--"careerist scumbags." It's amusing. But I also worry about Chris in that he seems utterly consumed by me, preoccupied with analyzing my life, my hopes, my dreams. *sigh* I guess I should consider it a compliment. While he is busy waxing about me and my life, tossing out more false tautologies than Tara trots out tits at her shows (and that's saying a lot), I've moved on. I suggested to him, politely, he do the same instead of the edit warring he is engaged in. I will try to weed through Chris's personal analysis of me to locate what arguments he is actually making about the content of the article, and not the content of David Shankbone's life: 1. There doesn't seem to be any content related arguments here; it's all about me, my motivations, and conjecture as to why I do what I do (which Chris is certain he has figured out). 2. You take so much time talking about me, my motivations, my life, my character - so much effort, emotion and keystrokes - when you could have done the same to improve the Tara Subkoff article and added information about her acting career. Instead, you bitch that David Shankbone doesn't do it. Instead of expanding the article (which I did with Imitation of Christ), you want to contract it. And looking at your contributions Chris, you are oft-reverted for edits that you proudly proclaim on this page. There simply is a better, more mature way to edit Wikipedia than the way you go about it. You insert way too much emotion in your editing, with edit summaries that include "Tried to remove pathetic, inexcusable plagiarism"; "removed infuriating amounts of fan bias/opinion/hyperbole"; or when you took out alot of content and--again, as you have done here--ascribed motivations and lodged accusations at people you don't know. This simply is not an optimal way to edit Wikipedia, and you've blocked in the past for this kind of behavior, which you've repeated above. Keep your comments about the edits, and not the editors, and lose the emotion. Nobody's lives are at stake here. See WP:Personal attacks. 3. Imitation of Christ is not only a clothing line, but an artistic pursuit. If you had done so much due diligence, you'd know there isn't even a "runway" at her events. 4. What you can photograph and what you can publish. 5. Chris, you are encouraged to assume good faith and, considering my extensive and high-quality body of photographic images on this site, which have improved so many articles I have lost count myself, you'd be wise to at least review the User pages of the people you lodge accusations about. 6. Stop bitching, and edit. You want to see the article improved, then improve it and not assign homework to other editors who themselves have improved it. It's my choice to focus on Imitation of Christ, and you're out of line for "taking me to task" for not researching and expanding her movie career. If you want to see it improved, then improve it yourself instead of expecting other people to do work you yourself want done. Again, instead of the time, effort and keystrokes you spent focusing on me, you could have created a first-rate review of Tara Subkoff's acting career. --David Shankbone 16:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

"Imitation of Christ"
This section is bloated -- this article is about one of the founders, not the line. It reads like a fashion review -- the tone is wrong for an encyclopedic article.--72.68.120.83 (talk) 12:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Re-named section "Clothing Line." This section needs to be made encyclopedic or it will have to go. --72.68.120.83 (talk) 13:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You are not giving any concrete examples and generally I disagree that it's bloated or unencyclopedic. It's a short, paragraph-long cited and sourced section about her line.  I reverted your edits.  -- David  Shankbone  23:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Clothing Line
This section had been written like a fashion review. This is an encyclopedia; non-encyclopedic content has been removed. This article is about one of the founders of the clothing line, not the clothing line and not a "fashion show." Therefore the image is irrelevant -- also removed.--72.76.3.104 (talk) 11:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You were reverted. This section is relevant to Tara Subkoff as she is the designer, and Imitation of Christ does not have its own Wikipedia page (although one may be warranted).  Until that time, policy and guideline dictates that it find a home on the page of the person who created the line.  -- David  Shankbone  20:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal of photo.
Under WP:BLP this photo should not be used on a personal article space which presents her in a disparaging light. Nudity, even at a fashion show should not be tied to the person's article space in such a manner as this. Under these concerns this image in question is not acceptable, especially as it is a picture that does not specifically attribute the subject. This is not a matter of censorship, this is a matter of policy. The last thing this individual should expect on a Wikipedia about her is this picture. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 07:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Someone deleting content about brain tumor?
I don't know why, but it seems there was a repeated edit war from an anonymous IP address who continued to delete the sourced information that Subkoff had an acoustic neuroma. Why, I'm not sure. It's public information, and she gave an extensive interview about it to Harper's Bazaar in 2010. Why this is being removed is suspicious to me, and I'm going to restore it because there is no valid reason for it not to be included in her biography. --Drown Soda (talk) 07:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

"Her symptoms had originally been diagnosed as TMJ"
Unless I'm mistaken, the link describes TMJ as the jaw itself, not as a condition of the jaw. As such, can someone clarify what her condition was misdiagnosed as? 2600:6C5A:657F:E631:740A:7BF7:46B6:F763 (talk) 07:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)