Talk:Shirley Chisholm/Draft

Approval area

Richard Jensen suggested that version 100122506 is ready for Approval. --Matt Innis (Talk) 13:50, 3 July 2007 (CDT)

Performed the mechanics of approval for version number 100122506 per individual editor rules. --Matt Innis (Talk) 18:52, 8 July 2007 (CDT)

image

I lightened the image. Richard Jensen 00:31, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

Thanks, evidently my lighten-up first time was far not enough :-). Yi Zhe Wu 09:14, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

Hm

Just added two more relevant images and did some tweaking. My goal for this article is to get it eventually approved, experts please feel more than welcome to change, revise, and comment on it. Thanks! Yi Zhe Wu 14:08, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

CZ:Neutrality

Yi, Please give a thought to the phrase I removed, and you re-inserted, that Chisholm supported "abortion of unborn embryos or fetuses". Certainly, Chisholm was a supporter of what those who support it call "abortion rights" -- but to add the phrase "of unborn embryos or fetuses" implies that Chisholm's view is, in fact, wrong, that it is not a matter of a woman's right but of the rights of the "unborn." The simple word abortion already describes neutrally what Chisholm supported. I also would note that the footnoted source says only that she supported abortion; the language you use is not in the sources. If you look at CZ:Neutrality Policy, I think you'll see what I mean here. We must state the facts, and not add loaded phrases to qualify them, phrases that have an intrinsic non-neutral viewpoint. Russell Potter 22:31, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

Sorry, that was indeed me trying to insert my personal views. I will try to be neutral in future. Sometimes it was just hard to write about a view opposite to my own, but I will try my best to not use loaded phrase. Thanks. Yi Zhe Wu 15:56, 11 June 2007 (CDT)

In this case I'm pretty sure Chisholm never advocated abortion. She said women had a Constitutional right to choose an abortion and said it's unconstitutional for state legislatures to try to remove that right. Richard Jensen 16:09, 11 June 2007 (CDT)

Well Britannica says "legalized abortion", but I don't know how to phrase it. If you say "right to abortion" in the article it would seem that abortion is a "natural right" while many would disagree. Jensen, how would you suggest this one to be phrased? Yi Zhe Wu 16:24, 11 June 2007 (CDT)

The Supreme Court said in Roe v Wade that women have a constitutional right to make decisions about abortion. (Which is what people seemed to think back in the 18th century as well). The idea that abortion is morally wrong was limited to Catholics before about 1970, and has since been picked up by a minority of Protestants, in order to build a political coalition. It's not Biblical. Richard Jensen 16:41, 11 June 2007 (CDT)

But there are atheists who oppose abortion as well, like Nat Hentoff. Yi Zhe Wu 17:03, 11 June 2007 (CDT)

Picture

The current image seems washed out -- I guess that the original version looked too contrasty, but I think we could improve on the adjustment. I've tinkered about with Photoshop and think I have a better one -- see comparison below. Russell Potter 10:41, 3 July 2007 (CDT)

On my CRT monitor at work, the one currently in the article looks exceedingly better. Will give an alternate opinion tonight from my flatscreen at home. :)  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 12:22, 3 July 2007 (CDT)

Robert, nothing personal, but your image looks almost as faded and washed out as the one presently in the article. There's no blackpoint, no contrast, and the tone range is from middle grays to whites. But maybe this is a CRT thing? I've looked at the present image on several different computers, PC's and Mac's with different monitors, white points, and color balance, and it looks washed out on all of them. I think the one I've posted looks 1000% better - full tone from white white to black black. but with a range of contrasts. If you have Photoshop, compare the histograms and you can see the difference even more starkly. Russell Potter 12:56, 3 July 2007 (CDT)

Images in table below.--Robert W King 13:15, 3 July 2007 (CDT)

But the new image, although it's better in colors than all the previous ones, makes her look older than she was. I don't know if that can be changed though. Yi Zhe Wu 15:57, 3 July 2007 (CDT)

Picture table

(Make sure to do a control-f5 to refresh your browser cache)--Robert W King 13:18, 3 July 2007 (CDT)

Chisolm image
Original	Robert
Stephen (actually this is Russell's version)	This was Richard Jensen's first modification of the LC source, I believe

Please note: the image I am advocating is Chisholm_mod2.jpg (see corrected caption above) - Russell Potter 17:12, 3 July 2007 (CDT)

On my flatscreen at home, Robert's is the clear winner (pun intended). :D  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 22:23, 3 July 2007 (CDT)

But Robert's picture make the person older than she actually was, though. Yi Zhe Wu 22:25, 3 July 2007 (CDT)

It makes the face well viewable at all. Otherwise, her left side is just all shadowed out.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 02:10, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

I'm happy with Robert's image, that seems to be the consensus; even though it has a limited tone range (white to grey, but no truly black black), it sounds as though it will look better on most monitors. The problem may be with the poor contrast range of the original. Russell Potter 08:57, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

Thanks Russel ;). Actually I did notice that was the problem in the original, and it's a side effect of enhancing it. What I ended up with was probably around 90-95% gray instead of black, but the original was of such dark constrast that nothing could be done. I probably could have monkeyed around with the airbrush tool, replacer tool etc etc, but that would be altering the original image and may actually change her appearance, so I opted for histogram/value changes to change the overall color spectrum. Maybe if we had a better scan or something, but I doubt that's within our realm of possibility.--Robert W King 10:12, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

APPROVED Version 1.0

Congratulations to the Politics and history workgroups! --Matt Innis (Talk) 18:52, 8 July 2007 (CDT)

Discussion for Version 1.0 stopped here. Please continue further discussion under this break.

Needs protection if approved

If this is approved, it needs to be protected. --Robert W King 21:19, 13 January 2008 (CST)