Talk:Thora Birch

From 7g7em7ini
Having decided that I no longer wish to be a user, I have removed my contributions. Please respect my wishes. Kind regards. 7g7em7ini 19.9.06

Yamla
Thank you for your kind comments in relation to the Thora Birch image I added. I have provided all the information I have in my possession. With all due respect, I have checked Wikipedia guidelines thoroughly and the image is to the very best of my knowledge fully compliant. I hear what you say. However, if every image had to have the kind of information you require, the entire encyclopedia would be devoid of any images whatsoever. I have checked hundreds of them and absolutely none of them meet those standards, standards which go way above what is required by Wikipedia. I uploaded the image utilising strict Wikipedia guidelines and fair use policy - check it. As it meets their criteria, there's is absolutely no reason why it should be removed. Thank you again for your comments. Kind regards, 7g7em7ini

Update: Have replaced image with another and provided source info. Regards, 7g7em7ini


 * Yamla, after I removed all my contributions after growing somewhat exasperated by your actions in relation to the image, I note that you have put them all back. I am happy for you to do that. However, why is it that the content I added was okay but not the image when every effort has made to ensure as far as reasonably possible that it is copyright free use? The image in question came from two sources both of which have made every effort to ensure that it is free use to the very best of their knowledge. You will note that the image has now been removed and the one remaining image transferred to the top. The remaining image is not a very good one and a very poor substitute for the one its taken the place of. In forcing the removal of the deleted image, I rather think that you have reduced the overall quality of the entire entry which is a shame. I hope that someone is able to ultimately come up with another better copyright free use image sometime and move the current one back to its rightful place in the Ghost World section. 7g7em7ini (7.9.06)


 * I appreciate your contributions, 7g7em7ini. I am sorry that we have been unable to get the images sorted out.  The problem with the image is that it is our responsibility to ensure it is being used under fair-use justifications and we simply cannot take the word of the sites that you listed.  This is because Wikipedia holds itself to higher standards of copyright adherence than most fansites do.  We must, for example, identify the copyright holder of a copyrighted image, something many sites simply ignore.  I agree that the remaining image is not very good and furthermore, it seems to be used now solely to depict Thora Birch, in violation of fair use.  It's all a big mess.  Anyway, I sincerely hope that you don't mind us keeping your text contributions which are of very high quality and which have no possibility of being a copyright infringement.  If you'd like more information, please feel free to ask.  --Yamla 22:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yamla. Noted. Many thanks. 7g7em7ini

Thora Birch's mother was a porn star
When adding information like this, it is helpful to add a citation. Dystopos 14:21, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Just cite wikipedia itself: Carol Connors (actress). -- Mikeblas 16:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not an authoritative source. A different source shouldn't be hard to come by. --Dystopos 17:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * A different source isn't hard to find. It's linked in the Carol Connors article, and was linked here until someone removed it without discussion. -- Mikeblas 17:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * So put it back. --Dystopos 18:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Her father was also a porn star. Jack Birch http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0083262/
 * Jack Birch and Carol Conners first worked together, and presumably first met, while shooting "Deep Throat" (though he was using a different name). The first film they did where he used his own name was "The Erotic Adventures of Candy". K8 fan 22:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed Controversy
Thora Birch does not get topless in American Beauty. Mena Suvari does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackhamm (talk • contribs) 1:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? She most certainly does.  It's a window scene.  --Yamla 02:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I stand corrected. I had to watch the movie once again.  Thats what I get for asking the other four people in the office with me :-)  --Jackhamm 20 March 2006

I...truly don't know what this is. Some sort of trolling or actual ignorance. We have put this to bed years ago, the media was quickly shut down when the first "controversy" appeared. I really could care less if some of you were told at the office, but Thora Birch never appeared nude in American Beauty. Her mother in fact was her breast double. Or did you not notice the light difference between the bottom two window panels and the the top (where Thoras head was located during the scene), that we had "magical" editing techniques as "far back" as then or the DIRECTOR, her MOTHER or the child welfare professionals who refuted this "omgz she was 16 and nudeiitY!" when the movie came out. 124.182.175.216 (talk) 15:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC) Harlquin
 * I've reverted your edit. It's sourced, to an article by Roger Ebert, no less.  See complete citation below at "American Beauty" heading. Please do not delete again without a competing source. Thanks.  David in DC (talk) 16:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add that reference 12, "Readers' forum: There's a reason for R rating", is unrelated and thus should not be included as a reference. It is only one person's remark about Nelson Wadsworth's opinions by a reader of a newspaper: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/660199860/Theres-a-reason-for-R-rating.html?pg=all This is not a primary source for anything; it's a reader's opinion:
 * Since when has redeeming value been a part of the Oscar nomination process? In a quick review of Best Picture winners over the last 20 or so years, I find graphic violence ("Braveheart," "Gladiator," "Platoon," "Schindler's List"), nude scenes involving girls under the age of 18 (Thora Birch was only 17 when she appeared topless in "American Beauty") and disturbing imagery ("The Silence of the Lambs").  199.193.86.172 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Added BAFTA & Golden Globes nominations
I added her BAFTA nomination for "American Beauty" and her Golden Globe nomination for "Ghost World". If anyone has a problem with this, please let me know.

-Amynewyork4248

NPOV?
This article reads less like a straight actor bio, and more like a gushing review from an obsessive fan. Any ideas on improvement? Alvis 08:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Dear Alvis, If fans did not bother to write the articles, Wikipedia would consist of nothing but nothing or stub articles in the biography section. Anyway, if Wikipedia looked like the Encyclopedia Britannica it would be a total bore. You ever read an old fashion encyclpedia?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs) 06:54, 6 January 2007
 * How many nine year olds have a "A period of consolidation"? Static Universe talk 23:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Literary criticism excised
I removed this literary criticism, which is well-written, but ought to appear in a forum for personal opinion, not an encyclopedia:


 * "However, in obsessing about Seymour, Enid is avoiding the challenge of building a life of her own in the 'real world' she is now having to confront post graduation.


 * Essentially, the film is about the complexities of becoming an adult in the modern world. When watching the film, the quality of Birch's performance is such that one can empathise with, and even sympathise with, Enid's perspective on life, despite her cynical attitude, the adverse affect it has on all around her, and her fanatical desire to be 'cool' (so compulsive, that even Rebecca fails to grasp the original punk look she experiments with at one point). The fact that the viewer is not expected to fully identify and sympathise with Enid is brought out by the contrasting fortunes of Rebecca who, in the course of the film, sells out to the conservative values that both she and Enid were rebelling against at its outset. Enid, on the other hand, finishes the film in search of some kind of meaning to her existence.


 * The point of the film is that it's not which choices we make in life that are important, but whether the choices we do make are ones that leave us fulfilled and content. Birch's performance brings out what a difficult process and prospect this is for Enid, as Enid witnesses her best friend Rebecca betray the values she once held dear in an attempt to conform to the more conventional values of society in the pursuit of 'success' (i.e. in its capitalistic form), and realises that Seymour, a man who has remained true to his principles, was doomed to lead an equally empty life. It was Thora's success in bringing out these complex underlying strands to the film in her critically acclaimed performance which were pivotal to the film's success."

To the author(s): please understand that Wikipedia cannot present personal interpretations of films, which are highly subjective, in the same manner as it presents objective information. Omphaloscope talk 07:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violation

 * Anonymous user 24.22.22.101 has added the copyvio template to this page's biography section, which appears to closely follow the language and structure of Birch's biography at Thora.org. --Dystopos 14:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed original research
I just removed two paragraphs of blatant original research from this article, but my edit summary referenced WP:BLP, which applies to this article but isn't the primary problem with the material I removed. Regardless, the deleted material should not be reinstated without sources. | Mr. Darcy talk 04:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Ethnicity
Having been unable to find any convincing references to ethnicity or ancestry, I deleted all mention of it. The line about how her last name was changed was particularly egregious; citing neither source nor justification about how common "Birch" is. --Deriobamba (talk) 06:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, the article did cite a reliable source, though the URL had expired. I have replaced it with an archived copy. However, I have removed the Jewish categories: nothing in the source indicates any identification with Jewish culture or religion (if anything, her name strongly suggests a Nordic/Germanic perspective), and merely having a Jewish ancestor on the paternal side does not automatically make one a Jew. Hqb (talk) 11:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Neither a German with being part-German. She's just American.. -- f s  10:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Winter of Frozen Dreams
Okay, I'll bite... just how is the bit about Thora's father watching her scenes encyclopedic?? To be honest, I can't see why, especially since the sourcing for the original story (unnamed source on-set) is thoroughly dubious. Tabercil (talk) 22:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not encyclopedic, it's not notable and I've taken the liberty of removing it. -Duribald (talk) 13:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's notable. It's sourced to the New York Post (or was until Duribald's failed effort to delete it.)  She's the child of porn stars and her teenage career is full of sexually precocious roles.  Earlier in the article it's noted that her first topless scene was at an age that meant, by law, the presence of a parent and a government child welfare official was required.  The Winter of Frozen Dreams material, fits with that and paints a more fuller picture of her career and career influences.
 * Having said that, if others feel differently, I won't continue to fight for this material. I concede it's a close call. David in DC (talk) 13:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * By notable I mean that it should be reflected in several independent sources. NYP is a good source in itself, but they're crediting an anonymous source and the incident doesn't seem to have gotten much attention outside of gossip pages on the internet (which are crediting NYP). By encyclopedic I mean - well, have you seen any info like this in an encyclopedia? Admitedly one of the advantages of Wikipedia is that there is more room than in a paper-based encyclopedia, which gives room for some "quaint" infromation being presented, but this? When it comes to painting a full picture of her upbringing, we should have proper sources for that. Trying to paint a picture based on different singular events that are in themselves sourced seems to amount to original research. Anyway, I've put it all back until there's some kind of consensus. -Duribald (talk) 14:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

American Beauty
I've given a better source for the child labor/toplessness angle in the article, but it's from a Chicago Sun-Times article that you cannot access without a subscription. Here's the part of the Roger Ebert article that the citation represents: Q. Thora Birch is under 18. Was that a stand-in for her topless scene in "American Beauty?" Isn't it illegal for minors to be shown nude in films? Buddy Hurlock, Hockessin, Del.

"A. A representative of the Jinks-Cohen Co., the producer, says: 'It is not illegal to have people under 18 nude or partially nude on film. The California Child Labor Board approved the scene, and its representative was on the set when it was filmed, as were Thora's parents.'"

David in DC (talk) 20:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's a more recent reliable source, but also to an article that can only be seen by paying: "...Thora Birch was only 17 when she appeared topless in "American Beauty"...."


 * This is from There's a reason for R rating, Deseret News, March 2, 2007. David in DC (talk) 19:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Age during the making of American Beauty
Ms Birch wasn't "barely 17" when making American Beauty, she was 16. She was born 11th March 1982 and the filming dates for American Beauty were 14th December 1998 to 25th February 1999. Therefore she would have turned 17 a little under a month after filming ended. --Stenun (talk) 15:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Above Suspicion
is edit warring to force an entire paragraph into the article about the film, Above Suspicion, that started filming just days ago, a gross violation of WP:WEIGHT and WP:RECENT. See. It's fine to mention the film, but no one knows whether this film will be a huge hit or a total flop, or even if filming will be completed. Compare this to one of Birch's major roles in Homeless to Harvard: The Liz Murray Story, which has one sentence devoted to it. Sundayclose (talk) 01:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * To be fair the paragraph only consists of three sentences so I wouldn't exactly call it a gross violation of WEIGHT. That said I do agree that it is unnecessary to go into specifics about the film when an article exists. I will try to tighten it up a bit. Betty Logan (talk) 00:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Her Main Photo
Does it make sense to use a picture from 2006 when we have one available from 2016? I would be happy to provide other shots that are color if that is the issue. Donmike10 (talk) 16:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, if the photographic quality of the older one is better. No, color isn't the issue. Quality of photograph is the issue. Look around. Wikipedia has lots of bio articles in which newer photos are available but not used because the older one is better quality. That said, if you have other more recent photos I'm sure the Wikipedia community would be happy to consider them. But that's not done by replacing the current image without discussion. The best way is to link to them off-wiki for others to view. Sundayclose (talk) 23:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * How exactly is the older one better quality than a professionally shot one which was just taken? That doesn't exactly make sense. The other one I can provide legally is this one - http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000301/mediaviewer/rm2745959424 Donmike10 (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * How exactly does "a professionally shot one" automatically qualify an image as better quality? If I claim to be a professional photographer and take a poor photo of her, does that automatically make it encyclopedic quality? I prefer the one you link above over either of the others. But that's just my opinion. So kindly stop edit warring and wait at least a few days to see if other opinions are expressed before changing the one that was in the article for nine years. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 02:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Is this some kind of personal vendetta against me? You seem to go after me fairly deliberately. How can an old photo be better than a new one? And why are we reverting back to a 11 year old photo that looks nothing like her now before getting consensus? Donmike10 (talk) 04:53, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please stop personalizing every edit to an article that apparently you think you have some degree of ownership. Two people can have an interest in the same article and disagree about its contents; for that matter, dozens of people can have the interest in an article and disagree; the odds of that on Wikipedia are enormous. Everything in this article is not about you, so please focus on the content rather than personalities. "How can an old photo be better than a new one?": Why is a new one automatically better? If I take a lousy photo of her today, does it automatically quality as better because it's newer. "why are we reverting back to a 11 year old photo that looks nothing like her now before getting consensus?": Looks nothing like her according to whom? Do you actually think yours is the only legitimate opinion among all the editors of this article? And there already was a de facto consensus for the current image. Read WP:CON: "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus"; the current image was not disputed for nine years. You disputed it, which is fine, but that requires a new consensus. There are a few things that are very simple: The current image has consensus until consensus changes. You alone do not change consensus. The article is not about you or any editor's personality. And neither your nor my opinion on this article or it's images carries any more weight than anyone else's opinion. So once again, please. Give this issue at least a few days for others to comment. And don't assume that you alone can overturn a current consensus. And by the way, I have expressed a preference for the image you link above. Can we assume that you don't think it's of encyclopedic quality even though you linked it? Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not against you and don't know you. If you are in agreement that the one I linked to above is the better image, then now we have consensus on going with that image. We can wait until someone else weighs in if you prefer. I wouldn't call that black and white one lousy at all. It was taken by a great photographer and just wasn't used for a long boring reason. The old one really doesn't look like her now, so really should be used perhaps in the section about her in the 2000s, not as the main image. Donmike10 (talk) 17:20, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You and I may have an agreement. But that is not yet a consensus; you don't seem to understand how consensus works. I hate to sound like a broken record, but give it a few days. And tell me something: Where did I say that the black and white image is "lousy"? I posed a hypothetical situation about myself creating a lousy image. I'm not sure where the communication is breaking down here, and I'm willing to acknowledge that I may have failed to dot every I and cross every T in every word I have written, but it would help a little if you would stop jumping to conclusions and being so defensive. In any event, if there are no other opinions here in a few days, I'm fine with using the image that you linked above. Sundayclose (talk) 20:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Since no one else has chimed in, will you leave it alone if I swap the photo out for the one you liked more? Donmike10 (talk) 19:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC)