Talk:Cover girl

Changes[edit]

Reworded/took out article content so the article is from a relatively NPOV. Still needs work! Rewrite, perhaps expand a bit. Sections needed? Ideas: Famous cover girls, external links to magazines that have cover girls, an image or two. NOTE: Deleted most of my previous discussion comments because most of it was unneeded explanation (can already view changes via history.) Atellus 04:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

etymology[edit]

Checking with paper dictionaries and dictionary.com suggest that 1915 is the correct 'first usage' date, Dictionary.Com Link. I've removed the comment (which probably should have been on here in the first place?) trying to find a reputable source to link with a permanent content url rather than a search. --JeffUK 19:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That was me that left that comment on there, I'm still new to Wikipedia as a whole. My apologies. Atellus 23:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 reasons why the picture should be removed.[edit]

The picture seems to be advertisement for tobacco smoking. I think this makes it illegal to link to in England and I am not even sure if it legal to view using the internet.

The other reason is that, I think, it would be considerred, by most people with asthma, to be in bad taste, unless, of course, it was on a page about tobacco advertising. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alec - U.K. (talk • contribs) .

I am sympathetic to your plea, Alec, but I do not believe a historical image in this context infringes any laws in the UK. Perhaps we should let those with asthma (I am not one, so I cannot say for sure) let us know whether such an image would cause them concern.—Stombs 13:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to " 2 reasons why the picture should be removed. "[edit]

At the time it was considered acceptable to portray this sort of imagery, thus this picture can be considered a historical fact of its time. Let's not become Disney who censors their material at any slight disapproval or fear and lie to our people about our censorship. Instead let's become stronger and admit to our shortcomings in history which will teach us to become better human beings, admit that while smoking kills people it's a choice to quit or not. Though it's difficult to quit due to the addiction many people have from the chemicals in tobacco.

Let's get angry at the men and women in The White House who not only allow the cigarette and alcohol company's to sell their products underhandedly, but refuse to legalize any other drug that other people are addicted to and paint all the people addicted to them as criminals. Let's get angry at the food industry who put addictive's within our food and drinks as well as toxins which become labelled as natural flavor's or artificial flavor's because they want consumers to not become aware of what they're eating. Let's get angry at the many people who believe men and women addicted to both legal and illegal drugs are criminals instead of people who need help quitting because they're just victims to the drug industry which the tobacco and alcohol company are in. But let's not get angry at Wikipedia who tries its best to be an online encyclopedia for everyone while being as accurate as possible.

I hope my response can help you reconsider your idea of censoring this image for being offensive. Storm Machinine (talk) 04:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Cover girl. 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) 06:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]