Talk:Sharon Tate

Jennifer Tate?

There seems to be an article that is an exact copy of this one with the name Sharon replaced by the name Jennifer. Should that article even exist? Pawnnolonger (talk) 09:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Good catch, I restored the article, --Nuujinn (talk) 09:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Unborn baby

People keep adding to her bio information that she had 1 child. She was pregnant, but did not give birth. Saying that she had 1 child is a POV by people who are trying to confer status to unborn babies.

Thats right. It's corrected. It's not only POV, it's vandalism. --Knickiknacki (talk) 21:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

They are trying to confer status to fetuses, not "unborn babies". Jersey Jan (talk) 16:54, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Paul Polansky was not fetus - he was stillborn child, delivered during autopsion after his mother's death. He was also acknowledged by family as baby and listed on his tomb as such. If you have issue with that, then you should also remove stillborn children from other people infoboxes. However, first you should to cite one Wikipedia rule that is againts listing of stillborn children. Sobek2000 (talk) 21:03, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

No, it was not a stillborn child. A stillborn child is one that is dead "at birth", born of a living mother. Tate's fetus was just that, a fetus, and remained a fetus even though the decision was made to remove it from Tate's body during autopsy. It was never born. As for what Tate's family chose to do regarding the existence of the fetus and the headstone, that's irrelevant. They could have decided the same if Tate had been 8 weeks pregnant instead of 8 months, but that would not have changed her 8 week embryo into "a baby" or a "stillborn child" either. Jersey Jan (talk) 19:37, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I believe that Sobek2000 has changed Tate's information box to reflect that she had "1 child. Delivered posthumously. Stillborn". Please, whoever can do so, delete this, especially as the decision had already been made that it does not belong there. Jersey Jan (talk) 19:55, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Never mind, I did it. I felt free to do so as this has already been found to be POV and vandalism. Jersey Jan (talk) 20:09, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

It was not - previous discussions were about unborn child. I listed him as stillborn, as he was such. Sobek2000 (talk) 20:19, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Who made this decision? You? Stop doing your own agenda there. "A stillborn child is one that is dead "at birth", born of a living mother" - That is complete nonsens. Stillborn means child was born with no signs of life. That was exactly what happened to Paul. Stop referring him as "fetus" that is incredibly disrespectful, insensitive and downplays tragedy that happened. I thought you pro-choice people are all about choince - then you should respect fact that family acknowledges Paul as child that list his life. Sobek2000 (talk) 20:09, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Do you not see the discussion above? More than one person has tried to make Tate's fetus into "1 Child" that she gave birth to, and it was decided that this is POV and vandalism. You've gone against that, so you're the one pushing your own agenda.

"Pro-choice" refers specifically to women having the choice to terminate a pregnancy if they so desire. It does not refer to anything else. Everyone knows that, so stop being disingenuous here.

"Stillbirth mean child was born with no signs of life"? Tate's fetus was never born. Taking a fetus from the body of a dead woman is not a birth.

Look it up. "Stillborn" is defined as "dead at birth", and fetus is defined as developing human (developing, meaning not human throughout the process) from two months gestation until birth. Tate's fetus was a fetus. And as I pointed out below, Wikipedia is not in the business of taking orders from its subjects, or in the case of dead subjects, the subjects' families, nor is it in the business of soothing their feelings. Change Tate's info box as much as you want. I will change it back, because it is vandalism. Jersey Jan (talk) 20:26, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Tate's child was born (taken outside body). Being born referrs to children above miscarriage line (21 weeks) who emerge from mother's body wheter naturalny od via operation. There is no required mother has to be alive.. "I will change it back, because it is vandalism" - no, it's true

Please, find my source that stillbirth required mother to be alive. Sobek2000 (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

You find one that states that taking a fetus from the body of a dead woman during autopsy is considered a birth. Jersey Jan (talk) 20:43, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

"A baby who dies after 28 weeks of pregnancy, but before or during birth, is classified as a stillbirth." - Paul was taken post morten after 28 weeks, so he was stillborn according this definition.

https://www.who.int/health-topics/stillbirth#tab=tab_1

From Wikipedia: "Stillbirth is typically defined as fetal death at or after 20 or 28 weeks of pregnancy, depending on the source.[1][2]: Overview tab, [8] It results in a baby born without signs of life.[9] "

In both cases no mention mother has to be alive. Sobek2000 (talk) 20:47, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

It's assumed the mother is still alive, as the taking of a fetus from the body of a dead woman is an unusual circumstance. Jersey Jan (talk) 21:01, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia discusses feelings of guilt or grief on the part of the mother, prevention of stillbirths, the effect on subsequent pregnancies, depression, financial loss, and family breakdown as a result of a stillbirth, and healing after a stillbirth, none of which is relevant to a fetus being taken from the body of a dead woman during an autopsy. That is obviously not being referred to here. Jersey Jan (talk) 21:07, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

"Taking a fetus from the body of a dead woman is not a birth." - Then cesarean section resulting in live birth of dead woman is also not birth? Sobek2000 (talk) 20:41, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Women who die due to a Cesarean section go into the birth process alive, and die during the process or shortly after it. That's not the same as removing a dead fetus from the body of a woman who has been known to be dead for some hours or days.

I am not taking your anti-choice nonsense lying down, so we may as well quit this discussion now. It's not going to go anywhere. Jersey Jan (talk) 20:46, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I am talking about case of women who died and THEN section was done. I was nowhete anti choice in this discussion - quote opposite: Sharon clearly chosen to have her baby and her stillborn baby was acknowledged as such at her tombstone. We are not talking there about listing child was aborted but about full term birth that was stillborn. Sobek2000 (talk) 20:50, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

This is only if the woman dies very shortly before the birth, not hours or days before a fetus is taken from her dead body. Jersey Jan (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

That is your OPINION. Where is your source? Sobek2000 (talk) 21:24, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Your sources are not comprehensive.

As for Wikipedia's policy about listing stillbirths, it appears that singer, songwriter, and actress Lily Allen suffered a stillbirth in 2010, and then gave birth to a daughter in 2011 and another daughter in 2013, and her info box says she has two children. Alexa PenaVega gave birth to three children in 2016, 2019, and 2021. She then suffered a stillbirth in 2024. Her info box states she has 3 children. I could go on, but that would be tedious. Overall, although there may be a few exceptions, it doesn't seem that Wikipedia "counts" stillbirths in the total of a person's children, if I may put it that way. I think this entire discussion has been over a moot point. Jersey Jan (talk) 23:29, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I never said all wikipedia pages are comprehensive. The point is - wikipedia does not prohibit listing stillborn children at infoboxes. The problem here is that you decided to use Sharon Tate's page to your own agenda and you try to deny her baby his personhood, just because YOU don't view fetuses as human beings. And you even went so far as referring to child who got name as 'fetus' and showing baffling insensitivity to matter. It's not my buisness you support abortionm however, you clearly are not pro-choice, since Sharon Tate made choice to have her baby, yet you coldly disrespect tragedy that happened to her, her child and their family. Should I remind you that her last words were "I want have my baby"? It's seems she was keen on having this child, so you should respect her choice and acknowledge Paul as human being, since it wouldn't be against his mother's wishes. But regardless, wikipedia is not about your beliefs - facts are: Sharon Tate carried child, who was taken out of her and buried as another human being, Paul Richard Polanski. Fact is also that Paul was not fetus anymore.

Definition of childbirth is on wikipedia: 'Childbirth, also known as labour, parturition and delivery, is the completion of pregnancy where one or more babies exits the internal environment of the mother via vaginal delivery or caesarean section'.

Not a single world child and mother have to be alive. That is the case most of the time, but Paul cleraly exited the internal environment of his mother, so he WAS born. Claiming he was a 'fetus that was never born' is factually incorrect. Fetus is in utero. He was not in utero when he was buried. He also was not miscarried - he was full term. He was was buried as deceased child, not as 'fetus'.

Definition of being stillborn:

wikipedia: Stillbirth is typically defined as fetal death at or after 20 or 28 weeks of pregnancy, depending on the source. It results in a baby born without signs of life.

"A baby who dies after 28 weeks of pregnancy, but before or during birth, is classified as a stillbirth." https://www.who.int/health-topics/stillbirth#tab=tab_1

"A stillbirth is when a fetus dies in the uterus after 20 weeks of pregnancy. Stillbirth is different from miscarriage. In the United States, a miscarriage is usually defined as the loss of a fetus before the 20th week of pregnancy." https://www.cdc.gov/stillbirth/about/index.html

"What is stillbirth?

In Australia, stillbirth is the birth of a baby who has died any time from 20 weeks into the pregnancy. The baby may have died during the pregnancy or, less commonly, during birth."

https://www.pregnancybirthbaby.org.au/what-is-a-stillbirth

Definition of birth: 1) the emergence of a new individual from the body of its parent see also date of birth 2): the act or process of bringing forth young from the womb" [Paul did emerge from his mother's body as he was taken out]

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/birth

"the time when a baby comes out from the body of its mother" [Pauld did come out of his mother's body]

https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/birth Sobek2000 (talk) 00:50, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Jesus, will you ever let this go?

I have explained already that it is not the business of Wikipedia to worry about or pander to the desires and feelings of its subjects or its subjects' families. Encyclopedias do not do that. What if Wikipedia were to worry about what Ted Bundy's mother's feelings are and decide to call him a "nice but misunderstood guy"? No encyclopedia, in print or online, is required to "respect Sharon Tate's choice". Encyclopedias are about facts, not feelings. Yes, it is a fact that Tate wanted to give birth to her fetus, but that doesn't make her fetus a neonate. It is a fact that the fetus was removed and that Tate's family chose to give it a name and bury it with Tate, and put the name they chose on the headstone, but that also does not prove that it was a stillborn. It is NOT a fact that the fetus ever ceased to be a fetus, since it was never born.

You accuse me of trying to make this about my feelings, but it's obvious that you are overwhelmed with feelings about Sharon Tate's fetus and that it what is causing your absolute insistence on continuing this argument.

As it happens, I am pro-choice up to six months gestation only. I do not support third trimester abortion unless it is to save the life or health of the mother. I do consider fetuses in the third month to be human, however, they are still fetuses. That is the correct term and I will use it.

You're doing nothing in your last paragraph but repeating your arguments which have not convinced me, and using your definitions which I do not consider to be comprehensive. A birth requires someone to give birth. A corpse cannot give birth. A procedure performed during an autopsy is not a C-section. You will not change my mind on that.

Now you've submitted a dispute so leave it at that. Jersey Jan (talk) 02:41, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Correction: It should read "I do consider fetuses in the third trimester to be human". Jersey Jan (talk) 02:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Manson Family Template removed

Sharon's wiki page focuses on her as an actress and not so much on her as a victim. The "Manson Family" template has been removed from the "External Links" because there is already a section on her death in the article which links to the various Manson family articles.

Interesting info that may be worth noting

From The Beatles Forever by Nicholas Schaffner, page 129: "...Charlie Manson, who made the Beatles his rationale for murdering the wife of Roman Polanski. The famed director's diabolical Rosemary's Baby was filmed in the New York apartment building presently inhabited by John Lennon". Mind you, the book was written in 1977. Could this be notable for inclusion? If so, could someone please add it in where they see fit? It might also be worth noting on some other articles, such as Roman Polanski, Charles Manson, etc. Bossanoven (talk) 03:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sharon Tate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121027081424/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article547335.ece?print=yes&randnum=1254102174470 to http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article547335.ece?print=yes&randnum=1254102174470

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The "Manson Family" template is not necessary for this article. The "Manson Family" is already linked within the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.206.237.191 (talk) 15:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Infobox image

Opening a section for discussion. I have reverted the infobox image back to the longstanding photo. Those put in to replace it were of low quality and not up to infobox standards. Fine for the body of the article, but not for the infobox. We can do better, and should do better, for readers - many of which may only read the lead and look at the info box. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 11:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Boy, you're really on a roll, following all my edits, trying to delete every improved image added, challenging their PD status, etc.

Lead photo options

• Option 1
  Option 1
• 
  Option 2

1: Clearly a better image for the lead, IMO. The b/w one is already in the body.--Light show (talk) 20:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

• 2 Number one is blurry, a screenshot, and not suitable for the infobox. Nothing wrong with #2 as the long-standing infobox photo - it's far superior to the two the above editor has put in there within the last 24 hours. Fine for the body of the article, not the infobox. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Except "2" is also a screenshot, just as blurry, but in b/w, horizontally formatted so it doesn't fit well, and is only 1/3 the pixel size. --Light show (talk) 20:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Just as blurry? I think not. It's not obviously a screenshot, whereas the two photos you have put into the infobox in the last 24 hours are obviously so, not to mention badly done. Blurry, color is off. Mind you, my comments here are only about the photos themselves - I get the feeling you are taking this personally, and wish you would not. I just care that the best image representation of the article subject is in the infobox. I've had this article on my watchlist for quite some time and seeing the photo change to what was put in was a shock, to say the least. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

You mean you have me on your watchlist. Just because it seems someone is shadowing my edits and trying to undermine them elsewhere, is no reason to think I take it personally. Likely just a coincidence. --Light show (talk) 21:06, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

You really need to cut the victim bullshit. No, I don't have you on my watchlist. I am not interested in your edits. I'm interested in the integrity of articles and their accompanying images. Have been for years. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Except just over the last few you've been blocked for disruptive editing 14 times! And that's just under your current User name. --Light show (talk) 21:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

^^^This^^^ has nothing to do with the discussion or the RfC. Drop the personal attacks (that you have been bringing to discussions with me at other talk pages in order to WP:WIN, or possibly get me to stop discussing). Please discuss the editing/content dispute, not you feeling as if you are being followed (you're not), not my block log (I'm not bringing yours up), and not trying to imply I have been here under another account (I haven't). Can we please just discuss peacefully? I'd really like that. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I've only made a handful of edits beginning 2010, but it's obviously been on my watchlist. Your first edit to the article was just a few hours ago, right after I added a new photo, and it was to delete it! If you're willing to edit peacefully, so am I. --Light show (talk) 21:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, now we've got a problem. After some looking around, I've been able to determine that both of the screenshots from Valley of the Dolls movie trailers that you uploaded (one of which is now the infobox image) are copyrighted. The trailer can be seen here at Rotten Tomatoes: [1]. At 1:18 into the trailer, the copyright notice comes up as "Copyright ("c" in circle) MCMLXVII by Red Lion Productions, Inc". Then, at imdb [2], the trailer is longer, but the same copyright notice comes up at 3:22 into it as "Copyright ("c" in circle) MCMLXVII by Red Lion Productions, Inc." and 20th Century Fox Film Corporation." This is two trailers with copyright notices. This proves the screenshots you have uploaded are copyright violations.

At Commons, when you uploaded these screen shots, you notated that they were not copyrighted. This is untrue. The image needs to be removed from the article infobox immediately, and administrators at Commons as well as here need to be notified immediately. You've previously been banned from uploading images at Commons because of extensive copyright vios. All of this needs to be looked into, especially in light of your problems in the same vein previously. I'm pinging the following administrators who were involved in discussion for your previous ban from uploading images: Calliopejen1, Diannaa, Masem, Laser brain, Moonriddengirl. Copyvios are, as I'm sure you're aware, very serious. Since this is a major holiday weekend, I figured it would be best to notify several admins to get this dealt with ASAP. I will also be notifying administrators at Commons in the same manner. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Pinging Drmies as he was also involved in the uploading ban discussion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Clear copyright violation even checking the source given. Light show needs to be topic banned from anything dealing with images, as this shows no competence in understanding copyright checking we rigorously require. --MASEM (t) 00:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Am archiving this talk page section as there is no need for further discussion - the image(s) in question have been deleted at Commons due to a copyright violation (see here and here). Further discussion regarding the uploading of the now-deleted photo suggested for the infobox can be found here and here. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:09, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Top Billing

Should this statement remain in the lede especially since it has three references now. Winkelvi totally removed it. I did some research and found 3 references. "Tate's last completed film, 12+1 was released in 1969 after her death, with the actress receiving top billing over co-star Orson Welles." Winkelvi reverted removing the statement and the refs saying in edit summary not suited for the lede. Opinions? Pauciloquence (talk) 17:12, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

First of all, referenced content is generally reserved for the body of an article and is not placed in the lede. Secondly, that she received top-billing over another actor is more trivia than lede-worthy content and really isn't necessary for the lede. Is it even in the body of the article? (haven't looked yet for myself). The lede is more for notable moments summarized rather than tidbits of information. My suggestion is that you read WP:LEDE to get a better understanding as to why the additions you're now edit warring over are unnecessary for the lede in this article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:21, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Pinging admins familiar with your attacking and feuding behaviors on wikipedia. Nyttend Floquenbeam I put the information in the lede with three references to show how notable and important the information is. Getting top billing over Orson Welles is a big deal, and certainly not trivia or a minor tidbit. It is quite an accomplishment. There was already a reference there for another statement. You just removed the top billing one and three references. You are at 4-5 reverts in the less than the last 24 hours. I made one revert then asked for talk page discussion. You are edit warring, just like you did at the Zsa Zsa article. Why can't you work in a collaborative manner rather than try to take ownership of these article and edit war trying to get your way every time? I will wait for some other editors opinions on the statement and references you removed from the article. Pauciloquence (talk) 17:46, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish here: improving the article or getting me into hot water? Pinging administrators makes no sense because I've done nothing that requires administrator attention. Your use of the word "feuding", however, is interesting (as it's a familiar phrase from my past with Floquenbeam - which raises some suspicion in my mind). Regardless, "feuding" is not what's happening here on my end of things. You do now seem to be following me and seeking out my past and past edits (editing the Laura Ingalls Wilder article is out of your typical topic set). Regardless, all this has nothing to do with the Tate article. If you have a specific issue you think needs administrator attention regarding my editing and activity in Wikipedia, that's best left for other venues. Just so you know, I'm not going to engage in a back and forth argument with you here on the above; I have no desire to spar with you. Indeed, it's time to move on and away from where you're trying to take things.

Back to the topic of this discussion section: we should be discussing improving the article within policy, guidelines, and common sense as well as what's best for the article and its readers. I maintain that according to WP:LEDE (which, above, I asked you to read), the placement of several references and the mention of her billing above Orson Welles is inappropriate for the lede of this article. It does nothing for the reader to give them that much in the lede (something that's also addressed in the article on lede composition). If it's mentioned in the body of the article, that is sufficient and the appropriate place for such content, along with the references supporting it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:11, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I am trying get some help from an administrator, so I chose two that are familiar with you and used the language I saw at your block log. I found those two names on your block log. You have been continuously edit warring over several articles against me and other editors. That needs some admin help or attention. It looks to be a pattern. You are also wrong in trying to create a diversion by claiming I am following? And you are wrong about Laura Ingalls Wilder. Following? I have been working from the clean up list for the children's lit project. I had no idea you had ever even edited it. The list is here: [3] I have been editing many authors, books, and things on the list. The diversion you are trying to create holds no water hot or otherwise.

Stop edit warring and your bullying me towards me just because I recently started here. I have had enough. Pauciloquence (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Pauciloquence, do you have anything to say in relation to why you think the content along with the references belong in the lede of the article? Did you read WP:LEDE and perhaps have something to say about that in relation to this article? So far, you've really not established any kind of cogent argument regarding the content being in the lede. As with the other issue I attempted to discuss with you a few days ago (and went to DRN in order to get you to discuss rather than edit war), you aren't really talking about anything other than what you think about me. It would be great if we could actually discuss content and edits this time and come to an agreement based on a productive discussion. Wanna give it a try? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:24, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like another friendly gesture you made about the photos: "Can we please just discuss peacefully? I'd really like that."--Light show (talk) 21:47, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Good! I'm glad it sounds that way. Because this, as well as the same I extended to you, is friendly and an attempt to work things out collegially, peacefully, and productively. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

However, actions speak louder than words, since you immediately proceeded on your search and destroy mission:

The image needs to be removed from the article infobox immediately, and administrators at Commons as well as here need to be notified immediately. You've previously been banned from uploading images at Commons because of extensive copyright vios. All of this needs to be looked into, especially in light of your problems in the same vein previously. I'm pinging the following administrators who were involved in discussion for your previous ban from uploading images: Calliopejen1, Diannaa, Masem, Laser brain, Moonriddengirl. Copyvios are, as I'm sure you're aware, very serious. Since this is a major holiday weekend, I figured it would be best to notify several admins to get this dealt with ASAP. I will also be notifying administrators at Commons in the same manner.

Happy holiday to you too. --Light show (talk) 23:43, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

But so you'll know there are no hard feelings, I want to compliment you on your amazing editing skills. Just a few days after first editing WP, you were able to contribute with some very impressive editing skills for newbie! --Light show (talk) 23:49, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

It's abundantly clear you are now attempting to goad me into a fight. Not interested. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:34, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

RfC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is a dispute over content in the lede of this article (diff here). The concern was in regard to the suitability of the content per WP:LEDE. The content was removed but later reinstated (with citations); the reinstating editor states the content has existed for an extended period of time. The discussion (diff here) has not been productive and could benefit from more opinions.

The specific question is: Should this content be added to the lede?. Please respond in the following manner:

• Support, keep in lede
• Oppose, remove from lede
• Other: any other solution including rephrasing

When you respond, please use the "Survey" section below and the "Discussion" section for any threaded discussions. Thank you. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:26, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose; remove from lede. Content is not necessary in the lede and amounts to over detail per WP:LEDE. Having the content regarding Orson Welles in the body of the article will be sufficient. That the content has been in the lede for a while does not make it appropriate for that section of the article. Adding references to the content in the lede does not make it more sustainable in that section. The content is good to have in the article, just not in the lede. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:30, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
• Other. I came here from the RfC notice, and otherwise have had no involvement with the page. I agree with the comment above, that the information about Welles and billing is not really needed in the lead, but is appropriate for the main text. I've looked for a way to tighten it up, and I'd like to suggest this: Shorten the sentence to "Tate's last completed film, 12+1, was released in 1969 after her death." (Note that I added a comma after the film title.) I would then make that sentence the last sentence of the current paragraph in the lead, that starts "On August 9, 1969...". That way, it would provide a sort of ending or resolution to the lead paragraph about the murder, and I think that would actually improve the flow. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:37, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I think this looks like a great improvement, Tryptofish. The RfC, I would say, has died on the vine and can be closed shortly as it was needed only because a new account, which turned out to be a sock from a now-prolific sockmaster, insisted on the Welles content being in the lede and edit warring on it. The "problem" no longer exists, therefore, neither does the content dispute. I can put your content change suggestion into the lede, or you may. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 01:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

The lead's been tightened. Mentioning Welles in the lead wasn't really needed. All the details about the Manson case, which are overly-covered in the body, has also been tightened from the lead. I'm not sure an RfC for trivia is really needed. --Light show (talk) 21:54, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

If you don't run into opposition in the way of a reversion by Pauciloquence, I will be surprised. His edit warring over the mention of Welles, in addition to refusing to understand that it is trivia and does not belong in the lede, is exactly why this RfC was started. If he agrees with your changes and says nothing more, that will present an interesting scenario, indeed, as well as cause me to wonder what his agenda truly is. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

The mention of Welles was tivial, but your deletions included everything about her last film. You don't need a chainsaw to trim a bush. --Light show (talk) 05:30, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

The mention of Welles was what the dispute entailed, why this RfC was created. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 09:10, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Welles wasn't mentioned in the RFC or in any of the rationales for the edits. How would anyone know? --Light show (talk) 09:32, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

The history is available for anyone to look through. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 10:10, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Film career

This section should be split up. It is 15 paragraphs and just looks like a wall of text. Splitting it up into sections makes it look cleaner. The length of her career being "only a few years" is not a valid reason for having that be one section when a lot happened in those years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.188.12 (talk) 18:13, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sharon Tate. 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:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20120524205629/http://www.goldenglobes.org/browse/member/30188 to http://www.goldenglobes.org/browse/member/30188

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 06:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

"Hippie Not a Housewife"

I've tagged the sentence that includes the phrase that Polanski "wanted to be married to a hippie, not as housewife" as needed an online citation, as it's presented as a direct quote. Matuko (talk) 13:36, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Her partners section in her info box

Her info box had a partners section. It has been deleted. Jay Sebring her former love/boyfriend has a partner section. With Sharon added to it. In his info box. If he has a partner section. Can this section. Please be added back. To her page? 2601:245:4102:DB80:0:0:0:1D9F (talk) 02:05, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD

Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Sharon Tate Valley of the Dolls 1967 - Restoration.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for January 24, 2023. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2023-01-24. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.9% of all FPs} 18:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Sharon Tate (January 24, 1943 – August 9, 1969) was an American actress and model. During the 1960s, she appeared in advertisements, small television roles and as an extra in films, before appearing in her first major role as Jennifer North in the 1967 film Valley of the Dolls, which earned her a Golden Globe Award nomination. That year, she also performed in the film The Fearless Vampire Killers, directed by her future husband Roman Polanski. On August 9, 1969, Tate and four others were murdered by cult members of the Manson Family in the home she shared with Polanski. She was eight and a half months pregnant at the time of her death. Her last completed film, 12+1, was released posthumously in 1969. This publicity photograph of Tate was released by 20th Century Fox for Valley of the Dolls.

Photograph credit: 20th Century Fox; restored by Adam Cuerden

Recently featured:

• "Daisy"
• Along the River During the Qingming Festival
• Rega

Debra Tate/Saddle

Who, exactly, says that Debra Tate asked if she could come by and pick up a saddle on August 8, 1969? I suspect the person who says that is Debra Tate and only Debra Tate. Food for thought: She takes liberties with the truth in order to inflate the role she played in her sister's life and death. 2600:6C5D:5A00:B1D:8D48:212A:A8E8:155F (talk) 10:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I came here to say this exactly, and am actually wondering if I made this comment but don't recall making it. Be that as it may, I think it's worth pointing out that "Helter Skelter" was published in 1974, a mere five years after the murders, at a time when information about Tate's last day alive is far more likely to be accurate than Debra Tate's reminiscences decades later (and that's being charitable and assuming she's not outright lying, but an outright lie is a possibility). Further, the information in "Helter Skelter" would be based upon official reports. My point is that "Helter Skelter" reports that on August 8, 1969, Sharon Tate's other sister, Patricia, called her on the telephone and asked if she could spend the night, and was advised by Sharon that she would prefer they make it another night. There was no mention of Debra Tate in conjunction with Sharon Tate's last day alive at all. Jersey Jan (talk) 17:07, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Why no section listing her children as 1? Her son, who was even named, was almost 9 months (full term) and was buried in her arms!

I tried to add it, but someone deleted it. Why? She was a mother, 8 and a half months pregnant with a son. Even if there are disagreements on how to list it, surely putting "Children 1" is not unreasonable!? His name is Paul Richard Polanski and he was buried in her arms!😔 I can't for even one second, think she would NOT want him listed in her main information section or leave out the part of her being a Mother! I hope someone will do something to make it right. Thank you. -Amanda 24Mango24 (talk) 08:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

What Sharon Tate would want or not want said about her or her fetus is irrelevant. Maybe she would want Wikipedia to say that her marriage to Polanski was trouble-free and made in heaven, does that mean Wikipedia should say it? Despite recent anti-choice legislation, legally, life still begins at birth, and Tate's fetus was never born. Jersey Jan (talk) 01:00, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Actually - he WAS born since he was taken outside of her body during autopsion. That makes him stillborn boy. 37.30.34.131 (talk) 14:05, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

No, the fetus was not born, so it remained a fetus. A child, stillborn or not, is born of a living mother. Jersey Jan (talk) 19:40, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Also - your isensitivity is baffling to refer as "fetus" person who was mourned and who is listed at his tomb as "baby". Not to mention "fetus" means "unborn/developing" organism that grows in utero; since Paul was taken out of his mother, he was not fetus anymore. Sobek2000 (talk) 17:34, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I understand. You are most likely anti-choice, so you find my correct reference to Tate's fetus as a fetus "insensitive". However, in these dangerous post Roe v. Wade times, when pregnant women are in danger of dying because doctors are afraid to treat them, lest they be charged with "murdering" embryos and fetuses, I find it more important than ever to be correct in my terminology. A fetus has not been born. It is not a neonate, or an infant, or a baby, until it is bornof a living mother. The fact that Tate's family chose to mourn the fetus and make a name for it and put the name on the headstone is irrelevant. If that made them feel better, fine, but it did not turn Tate's fetus into a neonate, an infant, or a baby. Jersey Jan (talk) 19:44, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

"It is not a neonate, or an infant, or a baby, until it is bornof a living mother" - I am not anti-choice, I am pro-life.

"It is not a neonate, or an infant, or a baby, until it is bornof a living mother" - No. Stillborn means without signs of life. Deceased mother can still delievered loving child via cesarean section. Paul was delievered too, albeit with no signs of life. Sobek2000 (talk) 20:12, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

NO, taking a fetus from the body of a dead woman is not a birth. And you are not "pro-life". If you were, you would not want to see pregnant women dying in emergency rooms because anti-choice legislation makes doctors afraid to and/or unable to treat them. This could have happened to my daughter if she had had a miscarriage today instead of fifteen years ago, which is one reason I have no patience with those who call themselves "pro-life". Jersey Jan (talk) 20:30, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

"And you are not "pro-life". If you were, you would not want to see pregnant women dying in emergency rooms because anti-choice legislation makes doctors afraid to and/or unable to treat them. This could have happened to my daughter if she had had a miscarriage today instead of fifteen years ago, which is one reason I have no patience with those who call themselves "pro-life" - I didn't see this comment before. I am not against abortion in situation when woman's health is in danger. You shouldn't assume my views and you shouldn't make Sharon Tate's tragedy about modern politics. It's not discussion about is abortion ethical - it's about acknowledging of child who clearly was carried to full term according to wishes of his mother and was then buried next to her as separatce human (not in her). Sobek2000 (talk) 09:35, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to further point out that it is not an objective of Wikipedia's to soothe the feelings of its subjects, or in the case of dead subjects, the feelings of their families. All of this talk about what Tate would want or what her family wanted or wants or how her family chose to consider her fetus is irrelevant, rank nonsense. Jersey Jan (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

"All of this talk about what Tate would want or what her family wanted or wants or how her family chose to consider her fetus is irrelevant," - Then it is irrelevant that you keep bring nonsens argument about being anti or pro-choice. Paul was stillborn child who was laid at his mother's armd, not the one who remained in her body. He was stillborn child. Sobek2000 (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I think it very relevant that you are anti-choice. It's your prime motivation in wanting to vandalize this article. Jersey Jan (talk) 20:31, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I am not anti-choice. If woman's life is threatened, she should have choice. But Sharon did not terminated pregnancy so it's irrelevant. She had full time child who was delievered stillborn after her death. It's not vandalism to stare this. On Wikipedia, editors should follow verifiable sources, not personal interpretations. Sources (such as biographies, news reports, or even cemetery records) recognize her son as a stillborn baby, Paul Richard Polański. Moreover, Wikipedia includes stillborn children in infoboxes of other public figures (like Keanu Reeves), so removing Baby Paul from Sharon Tate’s entry is inconsistent. Sobek2000 (talk) 20:39, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

It is vandalism to change an info box when it has already been determined that the change is POV and vandalism.

What source recognizes Tate's fetus as "a stillborn baby"? And in case you want to quote Roman Polanski's autobiography, that doesn't count, as it is not scientific and he is emotionally involved. Jersey Jan (talk) 20:51, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Neither are cemetery records scientific, valid sources. The records will reflect what the family wanted and/or said, that's all. I happen to know that the death years on my great-grandparents' headstones are incorrect, off by two years. Yet if you consulted cemetery records, you would believe that they were born two years after they really were. Keep it scientific, please. Jersey Jan (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Correction: I meant to say that their birth years are incorrect, off by two years. Jersey Jan (talk) 20:54, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

"It is vandalism to change an info box when it has already been determined that the change is POV and vandalism." - It was NOT. Previous changing were about referring Paul as as "unborn child".I pointed he was not unborn, he was stillborn.

"What source recognizes Tate's fetus as "a stillborn" - And what sources recognize you are alive and write this at this moment? It's logical conclusion - Paul was taken out of his mother body, so he was physically born. But he did not had signs of life so he was stillborn. (However, we can imagine hipotetical scenario that deceased woman is find in time and her child was delievered alive - it's birth, even when mother is deceased). I don't really understand what you have trouble to understand.

It's not the case of woman who died 3months into pregnancy. It's case of woman whose full term child was delievered without signs of life. Sobek2000 (talk) 21:02, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

You are going to continue to consider the fetus stillborn and nothing will convince you otherwise. At this point, my only demand is that you not change the info box again, as it has been decided that Tate did not have any children and to state otherwise is vandalism. Those who made this decision were fully aware that the fetus had been taken from her body during autopsy and still came to this conclusion. Thank you and have a good day. Jersey Jan (talk) 21:10, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

another source https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/9685-stillbirth "What is a stillbirth?

A stillbirth happens when the fetus dies after week 20 of pregnancy. Stillbirths can have multiple causes, including problems with the placenta or umbilical cord, genetic conditions that affect the fetus or pregnancy complications. There are resources available to support you through a pregnancy loss. Sobek2000 (talk) 21:16, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Again: decided by WHOM? It was not stillbirth that was previously discussed here. I brought you multiple definitions what stillbirth means. It means child dies after 28 weeks of gestation. Since Paul died after 28 weeks gestation and he was taken out of utero, his coming to this world was stillbirth. Sobek2000 (talk) 21:20, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

"Those who made this decision were fully aware that the fetus had been taken from her body during autopsy and still came to this conclusion." - No argument there. Situation of Tate was cery out of ordinary, they might've simply not thought through. Sharon's child dies in utero, but was taken which means stillbirth. Sobek2000 (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Not reading this, the discussion is out of hand. Just don't change the info box. Jersey Jan (talk) 21:26, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Maybe you should, becaus eyou are not discussing anything. You keep bringing your OPINIONS, whereas I brought you actual definitions. Sobek2000 (talk) 21:28, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

You brought no definition that a fetus taken from the corpse of a woman who has been known to be dead for hours or days is a "stillbirth". Don't change the info box. Jersey Jan (talk) 21:37, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

If there is no birth process, there is no birth. There is no birth process involved in taking a fetus known to be dead out of the body of a corpse during autopsy. It's not a vaginal birth and it's not a C-section. It's merely a procedure done during an autopsy. Jersey Jan (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I brought definitions that full term child taken outside of mother's body is stillborn.

'If there is no birth process, there is no birth.' - Birth means 'bringing offspring forward'. Tate's child was brought outside of her body, albeit stillborn.

'It's merely a procedure done during an autopsy' - Yeah... but cutting out of utero. Same thing is done during cesarean section.

Once again, you brought no definition that says that mother has to be alive during stillbirth. Stillbirth consists death of fetus after viability border (which is 21-28 weeks). Child is then brought from mother's body. You presented no source that says mother has to be alive. It's not about being 'anti-choice' or 'pro-choice' - it's about factual statement: Paul did not remain in utero of his mother. He was taken out and buried as separate being. Sobek2000 (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Found something interesting. It's a "coffin birth". It's the expulsion of a nonviable fetus through the vaginal opening of the decomposing body of a deceased pregnant woman due to increasing pressure from intra-abdominal gases. They call it a "coffin birth", not a "stillbirth". I think this is strong evidence in my favor. Jersey Jan (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I brought definitions that full term child taken outside of mother's body is stillborn.

'If there is no birth process, there is no birth.' - Birth means 'bringing offspring forward'. Tate's child was brought outside of her body, albeit stillborn.

'It's merely a procedure done during an autopsy' - Yeah... but cutting out of utero. Same thing is done during cesarean section.

Once again, you brought no definition that says that mother has to be alive during stillbirth. Stillbirth consists death of fetus after viability border (which is 21-28 weeks). Child is then brought from mother's body. You presented no source that says mother has to be alive. It's not about being 'anti-choice' or 'pro-choice' - it's about factual statement: Paul did not remain in utero of his mother. He was taken out and buried as separate being.

Sobek2000 (talk) 21:50, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

What the Tate family chose to do with the body of the fetus after it was taken from the corpse is irrelevant. Suppose they had decided not to give it a name, not to bury it with Tate, and not put the name on the headstone? Suppose they had decided to just cremate the fetus and that was the end of it? Would you then be arguing that it was not a stillbirth? I doubt it. You'd still want your stillbirth. So why do you think that their decision to bury the fetus, bestow a name upon it, and bury it with Tate has any relevance at all? Jersey Jan (talk) 23:07, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

'Coffin birth' is name of specific phenomenon, when child is expulsed by gases. Sharon's child was taken out of her. It was not coffin birth. Sobek2000 (talk) 21:51, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I didn't say it was a coffin birth, but there are similarities. I don't see why a fetus expelled by gases from a corpse is not a stillbirth, but a fetus taken from a corpse during an autopsy by a doctor is a stillbirth.

Your "definitions" are not comprehensive. They do not include the circumstance of the woman being a corpse and the fetus being taken during an autopsy.

Whatever, again, this is out of hand. Just don't change the info box. Jersey Jan (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I never said coffing birth is not stillbirth. I ca agree it is specific type of stillbirth. However, we are not discussing there such case - we are talking about child taken out of his mother's body. Stick to topic. Sobek2000 (talk) 00:52, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

It is on topic. If a fetus expelled from a corpse one way is not considered stillborn, then that's relevant as to whether or not a fetus expelled from a corpse another way can be considered a stillbirth. Jersey Jan (talk) 02:44, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Who says child expelled during coffin birth is not stillborn? If child was above viability border, then they are stillborn. Child is full term and dead - which means stillborn. Sobek2000 (talk) 09:19, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

ADDRESS, Unborn with Spahn Ranch not true info.

ADDRESS FRAUD IS A CRIME. This is not the Bundy ranch in Oregon or hidden valley ranch dressing. But use of the name in crime with name Sharon is wrong. Whoever is playing this sick game is destructive. We all know what happened. Your all satanic ritually abusive who think Appendix V or V rating is violence. It is not targeting me or Victor Nichols. I am making a wish for you to stop.

Premeditated Murder needs to be investigated just like the catching of terror plots of Mohammed Khan in Guelph Ontario. That the FBI found.

I do not live there in Guelph or London, or Victoria. I am not DOB 1956. Weird stuff showing on national public data on me on dark web. People are psycho. I am not changing my name or SSN. I have been to FBI. Good luck thieves and enemies aggravating violent acts. 170.62.8.96 (talk) 14:49, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Protected

I have fully protected the article for two weeks due to the recent edit war. According to the article, Tate died in 1969 and the question of whether the infobox should say "Children: 1 (Delivered posthumously; stillborn.)" should be settled. There is a discussion at the top of this talk from 2017 about the same issue. Please discuss wording for a suitable WP:RFC. Johnuniq (talk) 02:05, 7 April 2025 (UTC)