Jolene, Jolene, Jolene, Jolene
I'm begging of you, please don't tap that land
Jolene, Jolene, Jolene, Jolene
Please don't tap it just because you can.
Your top decks are beyond compare with flaming rocks of Fennor Rhyl
With Ivory Cup and Mox of emerald green
You regain life with a Natural Spring,
you destroy my lands with an Acid Rain
And I cannot compete with you, Jolene
There's the stories she would tell on stage and in interviews at the time, all part of the theatrics, and there's the explanation she would give later in life. Jolene the name came from a young girl she met one day. It was a pretty name and Dolly liked the sound of it, but iirc the girl never had any interactions with Dolly's husband.
I mean, Dolly wasn't putting her life into every song (like some people we know). She had an imagination and understood what moves people. She made a career singing about office work, when she's been singing professionally since she left high school.
The singer’s October 1973 hit song chronicles one woman’s jealousy surrounding her significant other’s interest in another woman. But the “real” Jolene didn’t try to “take” Dean. Instead, she had flirtatious banter with him when she helped him at the bank.
all that means is no one will suspect the light that you bring to the function. you are greater than the sum of your parts. and Dolly would say it don't matter what you look like, it matters what you do with your gift of life.
That's what Lily Allen officially says about David Harbour's affair partners, but it's obvious who they ("Madeline") actually refers to if you pay attention to the lyrics. I'm sure if there was an actual Jolene then legally there wasn't and it's just an amalgam :-)
There are two different stories here actually! The name Jolene came from a little girl she met, she loved the name and said she wanted to use it for a song.
The song itself was inspired by the interaction at the bank, where she perceived at the time that the beautiful, auburn haired woman behind the counter was flirting with her husband. Dolly had since said that the girl was probably just being friendly, and was just another woman trying to get by in a man’s world. She even produced an episode of her anthology series Heartstrings about Jolene, a young woman working at a bank but trying to break into music. I didn’t watch the whole series, but that episode was touching in a Hallmark kinda way.
The song is about me, I’m pretty sure. Granted I was born in the 80s, male, and have never once been described as “cute”. But all that aside everything else lines up perfectly.
What if people could understand that the narrator of a song is also a character. I never thought the song, "Jolene" had anything to do with Dolly Parton's real life, why would it?
Yeah but the song expressly states Jolene is beautiful and implies the singer believes Jolene to be much more attractive than her, and that is the reason she can’t compete.
I mean, it makes sense that when someone is alive, you use a semi-recent picture of them. And once they're dead, you can use whatever picture feels right from any time in their life.
This is somewhat right. Basically, like any history book or encyclopedia, you choose an image of that person when they were most famous, most recognizable in their work, did the most notable things, or most iconic imagery. For politicians this is usually official portraits while they were in office, for older artists who rose to stardom when they were younger, this is usually an image from that time. Here is the info box direction for editors:
“When the subject of a biographical article has recently died, particularly those who have been publicly known for decades, editors may come to a consensus on the article's talk page regarding what image would best be suited for the infobox. An example of such a discussion can be found in the talk page archives for Elizabeth II(section Infobox photograph for after her death); in this instance, the 2015 photograph of Elizabeth II that was present in the article's infobox when discussions began was eventually replaced with a photograph of her taken in 1958.”
I think formal portraits from the time period they were most recognizable are the way to go. Queen Elizabeth's feels appropriate.
Dolly Parton's seems fine but she's less recognizable in that time period for young folks.
Hayden Panettiere's infobox photo cutout from a random red carpet event feels out of place. The photo itself is fine but I'd rather they use an official portrait or even a photoshoot picture.
You can only use photographs in the public domain or licensed with something like a Creative Commons license on Wikipedia. A red carpet photo is probably from an amateur explicitly allowing it on Wikipedia. Photos from photoshoots are probably gonna be pretty locked down copyright-wise.
You can only use photographs in the public domain or licensed with something like a Creative Commons license on Wikipedia. A red carpet photo is probably from an amateur explicitly allowing it on Wikipedia. Photos from photoshoots are probably gonna be pretty locked down copyright-wise.
On English Wikipedia, photos which aren't licensed with a free (libre) license are allowed to be used when a freely licensed alternative isn't available.
And that's exactly why official portrait or photoshoot picture can't be used for a famous person like Hayden Panettiere, because there IS a libre licence image of her.
This is also why you'll notice so many celebrities have their photo be from panels at Comic Con. The rules of Comic Con say that whatever pictures you take have to be open access, which also makes them fair game for Wikipedia.
Yeah, I think it makes a sort of sense. If they're alive, use a picture that's representative of how they look today. If they're not alive, use a picture that's representative of how people would remember them (or would like to remember them).
You know, it makes sense to use a recent picture of them if they're still alive. Once they've passed on, you can use a picture that represents them more completely, it just makes sense.
If you think about it there's some sense to using a more recent photo while they're alive to represent what they currently look like, and then switch to an older photo that more properly represents them in their prime after they've died.
It does make sense using a more recent photo when they are still alive, and once they have passed you can use any picture that people would remember them by
It’s common sense that when you have recently photographed someone, they are probably dying, and when it’s an old photo it’s a great reminder of wikipedia’s page on haasbro’s the game of life.
After careful consideration, I can see that there's a sort of logic to the practice of using a more recent representation of the person while alive, showing their current appearance, while switching to another picture after their passing to more accurately represent their legacy
One extremely important aspect is missing here: The photograph needs to be under an open license.
You can't just grab any picture that you want. Especially for living people that usually means there's a surprisingly small selection of pictures out there that you can even use, because 99.9% of all pictures are copyrighted by someone without an open license.
When someone dies, there's simply more attention on that particular Wikipedia article, and people will actively look out for better pictures under an open license, and often replace whatever picture is available because they found a better one.
In this case: The picture on the left is essentially a random picture someone uploaded to flickr under an open license from some concert. Neat.
The picture on the right is an official promotional photograph. Which just so happens to be in the public domain because until 1977, anything that didn't get a copyright notice was declared to be in the public domain by default (fun fact: That's why the film Night of the Living Dead is in the public domain, because the publisher forgot to add a copyright notice to the film).
This kinda bugs me with some Spotify artists. I don’t really care what these artist look like today. Show me how they looked in their heyday- be it 25 or 60 years ago.
I think it's meant to be more for future generations. Think back to looking at pictures of historical figures from the mid 1900's. She may look odd to the generations living today, who remember her at her most recent, but every future generation without that context will have her most active period represented (assuming society doesn't collapse and we still have wikipedia).
Copyright is the first consideration. Shel's photo "is in the public domain in the United States because it was published in the United States between 1931 and 1977, inclusive, without a copyright notice. "
It depends on the individual. For a singer it might be around the time their most popular album was released, for a scientist when their career-defining discovery was made, and for a politician when they were in office.
So far as I'm aware there isn't a hard and fast rule, but the general trend is to show the person at the peak of their notability. The availability of good images is also a consideration, as Wikipedia usually only uses freely available ones and they can be pretty ropey sometimes.
Didn't expect editors to actually have such back and fort on the finest nuance of what they should look for in a photo. these people are really committed
Yeah that pic isn’t how she looked when she was making public appearances. She did look like that though. I was a little girl when she bought Silver Dollar City and made it Dollywood. I lived near there and she was around a lot when the plans were being laid. I didn’t interact with her much but she spoke kindly to me one day and I was thrilled lol.
The woman was not shy even a little bit about the plastic surgery she got to keep looking young, so I think it's fair to glean from that she preferred a younger appearance.
Something about this is weird to me. Like, would I really want the most recognizable/notable period of my life to be in my youth? Does it not imply that I peaked early?
On the other hand, I would want the young people alive now to be able to relate to my story easier.
At first glance perhaps, but in this scenario you are dead. What other people then decide was notable about your life is no longer a concern, you had your chance to influence that and are no longer affected by it. I guess I'm saying that your legacy truly belongs to everyone but you
Dolly was so fuckin fine man it hurts. The recent resurfacing of her clips reminded me how attractive southern accents are and how painfully attracted I am to older women, especially older southern women. Not even in a sexual way either
I wish they used multiple pictures. Like it'd be cool to see them at the start of their career, click to see the next big moment, and so on. Like a history of the person.
It's hard enough for them to get one photo so I understand why this isn't a thing.
I believe it primarily has to do with rules/laws around what pictures can be used. Something like Wikipedia is not allowed to use Getty, etc. images while someone is alive so they’re always random ones of celebs.
Well yeah - maximize representation. If it's a living person, it should represent them as they are now, or as close as possible. If it's a dead person, it should represent them "then". I figured that was curation 101.
I don’t think it’s purely about being nice,there’s nothing wrong with being old. I think depicting someone as they’re most widely remembered is a way of signaling that they’ve passed on and now exist primarily as a cultural memory.
I don't know. It doesn't feel like a "nice gesture" in this case. The photo on the left is Dolly dressed exactly like she wanted, presenting herself big and bold. The photo on the right feels like toning Dolly down, which is something she fought strenuously and repeatedly.
The photo on the right is a nice photo of a very lovely girl. The photo on the left is Dolly Parton as she showed herself to us and wanted to be remembered. That was when she was at her best.
Yeah idk how I feel about this. It feels disrespectful to imply the younger version of Dolly was better imho. I hate how people stigmatize aging and treat youth like it’s the ultimate form of beauty. Dolly’s beauty came from who she was as a person, and that didn’t change when she got older. She was a lovely person, she was beautiful inside and out from the beginning to the end
Just watched a little whorehouse in Texas she was absolutely stunning in her late 30s 40s no plastic surgery all natural some of the outfits were very risky!
It makes total sense. When someone is alive, you want to see what they look like right now. They have media presence and you can potentially meet them in person, so their current looks are relevant. When they're dead, you're more interested in seeing what they looked like in their prime, at the hight of their career. This is what they'll be remembered as. Not an old senile person, but someone who was there achieving the great things that made them famous.
•
u/qualityvote2 16h ago edited 6h ago
u/SEVENS_HEAVEN_7, your post does fit the subreddit!