Talk:Carmen Electra

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
More information about this article... The following comments have been left for this page: I've rated this as a start-class article due to the short length, limited scope, and poor images (including images currently nominated for delete/speedy delete). /Blaxthos 04:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC) (edit)

	Ohio Portal Carmen Electra is part of WikiProject Ohio, which collaborates on Ohio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to current discussions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Comments: edit  · history  · watch  · purge I've rated this as a start-class article due to the short length, limited scope, and poor images (including images currently nominated for delete/speedy delete). /Blaxthos 04:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Suggested article edit guidelines: To help us prioritise our workload, and in readiness for Wikipedia:1.0, we need to assess our articles for Quality. If this article is Unassessed, please assess it. See the Article Classification for instructions. If you disagree with a rating, you can change it or discuss it at Article Classification. After assessing this article's quality, please make sure it to add it to the Lists at Article Classification, following the grading scheme detailed there.

_

_

[edit] Carmen Electra's Aerobic Striptease

I suppose we really shouldn't mention "Carmen Electra's Aerobic Striptease" [1] in her list of accomplishments? -- Finlay McWalter 00:32, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

== Gay Icon Project == Emily K.

In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 20:35, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Tara Patrick got the name Carmen Electra from none other than Prince!

[edit] Illustration for this article

Yes, Carmen Electra is a good looking woman. And yes, she has posed for a lot of provocative pictures. And yes, I am among those who enjoy looking at them. But is it really necessary to illustrate this article (or similar ones) with the nudest picture we can find without a copyvio? We all know what a naked woman looks like; the purpose here is to show what Carmen Electra looks like. MK2 04:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, an actress once said that a nude scene in a movie is a documentary, not a performance. And it's fair to say that this photo documents Carmen quite well.  :b Wahkeenah 05:09, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Carmen is now the target of edit wars. How's about if we have a special section called "Carmen's Pirated Pinup of the Week"? Wahkeenah 22:59, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure she's been on the cover of plenty of magazines. Well, magazine covers are considered fair use, so find one and add it, and there's a solution. Everyking 03:58, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I bet she's had more magazines than Smith & Wesson. OK, I have in mind an "Esquire" cover from last summer. Now, should I scan it myself, or should I take it off a website where someone already scanned it? [2]

Hey, here's one of those oddities that pops into one's head late at night. Carmen's real name is Tara Patrick. She changed it either coincidentally or to avoid being confused with porn queen Tera Patrick. But Tera's real name is Linda Shapiro. So I'm thinking that somewhere in some big-city law firm there must be a lawyer named Linda Shapiro, who changed her birth name from Carmen Electra so that she would be assumed to be a professional attorney and not some bimbo.

heh. nice theory, but Tera Patrick became Carmen Electra probably before Tera Patrick was even born (update: OK, she was 16 at the time). --Randal L. Schwartz 04:41, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I've added a image of Electra. It's from a magazine cover so it's fair use. And she's naked which should satisfy the pin-up crowd. Is everybody happy now? MK2 17:07, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not happy. >:( You can't have enough Carmen Electra. But it will do. :) Wahkeenah 17:26, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Last time I uploaded a magazine cover for illustrating its front page model, I was warned that it doesn't fit the criteria for Fair Use (because it doesn't illustrate the magazine itself) and the pic was shortly removed. Consider that 3 of the 4 photos of this page are from magazines. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me}Who's the boss? 22:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Their fair use restriction argument is bogus. A magazine cover is free advertising for that magazine. Any magazine publisher that would sue over that is a moron. Wahkeenah 23:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not a matter of whether they would sue; Wikipedia policy is not to violate copyright law, even if we could get away with it. That said, magazine covers are considered fair use and can be used for illustration. However, there's at least one self-proclaimed expert running around here claiming that this isn't true and deleting cover illustrations. He apparently has particular issues with Playboy magazine covers because that's usually what he deletes. The rest of us have learned it's a waste of time trying to convince a fanatic. MK2 17:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The current problem is that some yahoo uploaded a "public domain" image of Carmen, a police mugshot, and others are using that as an excuse to delete the "fair use" images, leaving nothing but the mugshot, whose presence is a negative point of view. Wahkeenah 17:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The mugshot photo is hardly typical. I have no problem with it being in the article (in the appropriate section) but I think a more traditional portrait (a magazine cover by default) should be the main illustration for the article. MK2 08:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Could we find a less provocative picture of Carmen to begin the article with? PrometheusX303 15:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Is this one good enouth Image:Carmen Electra Scary Movie 4 German Photocall.jpg

[edit] Joey TV series?

I am pretty sure she was also a guest star on one of the Joey TV series' episodes. Maybe someone that is more knowledgeable on the subject could fill that in the page. :) User:82.76.161.146 12:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Check the IMDB external link, and feel free to expand upon it in the article. :) Wahkeenah 12:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bad Picture

This picture sucks. Someone change it. If I had no idea who Carmen Electra was, I wouldn't think she was hot judging by that picture alone. I'd change it myself but I don't know how.

I second that. It's horrible to use a mug shot to illustrate a person, if it's some police phot then it should have a cutline identifying it as such. There must be a better picture, I'm going to look now... Ifnord 23:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Some self-appointed fair-use expert (User:Ed g2s) zapped all the photos except this one. Although he denies it, he's clearly pushing a negative point of view. Wahkeenah 02:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I added this poor photo after seeing it on The Showbiz Show with David Spade. It is public domain because it's a mugshot, but the article needs positive pictures of Carmen. I am sick of the image deletion antics of these fair use experts and their ninny policies against displaying pictures that would likely stand up if it ever got to court. Lets tell these users to stop deleting good, worthy pictures based upon esoteric interpretations of fair-use law and bullying. --Nick Dillinger 07:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Some other self-styled fair-use expert has gotten into the act now. That mugshot is NOT "better than nothing", contrary to what the earlier wiki-nanny had said. Carmen Electra is not a career criminal like John Wayne Gacy, she is just an actress who got arrested for something once. The fact that it came from a David Spade program says a lot -- it indicates it was being used in a sarcastic way, for ridiculing the actress; in other words its mere presence in the article is an inherent negative point-of-view. Thus, I have zapped it from the article. I also took away the other photo, lest the self-appointed fair use police get in a tizzy about it. Wahkeenah 12:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Mug shots have nothing to due with fair use, and movie screenshots should be included here.--Nick Dillinger 14:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The point being that we are now in a potentially endless Edit Jihad with other users who will delete that movie photo. Look at the recent history. Why did you have to upload that ugly photo in the first place? Wahkeenah 15:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Those User's are wrong, just let the 2 photo's be gosh darn it!--Nick Dillinger 00:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

They're ignoring you. Wahkeenah 01:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

That is not a hot picture of her. There should be one of her in her swimsuit or lingerie. -- Metal Maiden 13:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, as mug shots go, it's moderately hot. Wahkeenah 15:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mug Shot

So why is there a mug shot and no reference to an arrest? [3] PrometheusX303 15:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• The charges were dismissed, which only adds to the point-of-view aspect of that photo. It's a sneaky way, for someone alleging to be a stickler to the rules, to push their own point of view about this actress. Wahkeenah 18:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

So then why not mention the arrest and then say the charges were dropped?Wikipediarules2221 04:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification

A couple of points to note:

1. We can't use fair use if there is an adequate free alternative (WP:FUC #1). This is Wikipedia policy (not an "esoteric interpretation of fair use").
2. The mugshot is adequate for the purpose of illustrating Carmen Electra. It shows her whole face, in-focus, and has not been doctored (AFAIK) - so is an accurate image of her at the time.

ed g2s • talk 16:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• It's ugly, and I have deleted it again. If you have nothing better to do than to continue this cycle, then neither do I. Wahkeenah 16:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  Ed is wrong, the fair use is subject to interpretation, and Ed is taking a far to hard a line. Can you please, I'm begging you, stop ruining pages by deleting pictures according to your extreme interpretation of "fair use" law. Not every Wikipedia user believes that Wikipedia's fair use is interpretated that extremely. STOP IT!--Nick Dillinger 21:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Have you read WP:FUC? You may think that our policy is an extreme interpretation of fair use law. It is not an interpretation of fair use law at all. It is a policy designed around our goal of collating free content. It so happens that we invoke fair use to allow some copyright images. It is quite clear about the case of where there is a free alternative. How else can you read "Always use a more free alternative if one is available"? ed g2s • talk 10:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll thank you to watch your language. Your use of that 3-letter abbreviation is just as sneaky as your continually pushing this mugshot on the public. Wahkeenah 18:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

" 10. As a quick test, ask yourself: "Can this image be replaced by any other image, while still having the same effect?" If the answer is yes, then the image probably doesn't meet the criteria above." This fails the test, as the only free picture portrays Carmen unfavourly, and your envoking bureaucratic red tape completely goes against the spirit of Wikipedia's Fair use Criteria, and yuor interpretatrion is unfair to an actress solely becasue they once got a minor arrest and a post on the smoking gun's website. Your behaviour is smameful in continuing to push deletion.--Nick Dillinger 19:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

And the unfree picture portrays her favourably - so what's your point? ed g2s • talk 15:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to know what you have against Carmen Electra. Did she refuse to go out with you, or something? What's your point in constantly trying to paint her as a career criminal? Wahkeenah 18:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible Public Domain Images

Sites that claim PD images: [4] [5] Both contain very nice photos of Carmen Electra. I don't know how to go about obtaining and uploading them per Wikipedia policy, though. PrometheusX303 19:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I doubt these would be interpretatied as public domain. Lets just add the damn screencap from one of her movies, which WOULD qualify under the law of the USA.--Nick Dillinger 21:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Good luck with "ed g2s". He'll delete that video capture photo again, then I'll delete the mugshot again, and then you can start the cycle again. I don't have a problem with the mugshot being there as one image, but it's POV to place that as the primary image, as if she were John Wayne Gacy. In fact, the arrest that led to the mugshot being taken amounted to nothing, as charges were dismissed. Wahkeenah 21:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It would be equally POV to select a "nice" picture of here, with professional lighting and makeup. If you're saying that how a person looks in a photo is POV, then there's no such thing as an NPOV photo. ed g2s • talk 10:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations on starting this cycle over again, thank you very much. No, it is not POV to select a "nice" picture of here, or her. Her public persona as that of an actress, and a "glamour" photo is appropriate. John Gacy's public persona is that of a serial killer, and a mugshot is appropriate. Photos that are connected with each of their defining public image is not "POV". If Carmen Electra were a career criminal, it would be a different story. Wahkeenah 11:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

And yes, I do regret posting that picture. I didn't think I would get caught in a fair use trap due to the inapropriate use of a PD image. :(--Nick Dillinger 22:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You could maybe upload something else to overlay it, or do it the right way, which is to nominate your own upload for deletion and then wait a week to see if they take action. Wahkeenah 22:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

My idealism would not allow it, as I still believe both images can coexist on the same page and not violate copyright law.--Nick Dillinger 22:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. Now all we have to do is convince that other guy. Wahkeenah 00:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

...which appears unlikely. Do us all a favor and clobber that mugshot. Wahkeenah 11:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible solution ?

Someone could contact Carmen Electra's publicist, maybe through whatever her official website might be, and request a free image that could be posted here. That should resolve this tempest-in-a-teapot to everyone's satisfaction, ja? Wahkeenah 20:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I like it.--Nick Dillinger 20:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

One could ask the photographer of this image to consider relicensing it. Jkelly 23:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I went to the official site and sent a note to carmenelectra@studiofanmail.com asking for a free photo of their choosing, and providing a link back to this article so they can see how certain users keep trying to portray their subject. It being Sunday, I don't expect to hear from them today, and maybe not tomorrow either. But if they do check out the link, then they can see whether wikipedia has any better standards than the average grocery store tabloid. Wahkeenah 18:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's their initial response, which should give you an idea of how special wikipedia is to the outside world:

An automatic reply from http://www.studiofanmail.com

Thank you for writing to Carmen Electra. This address is for photo requests ONLY. If you were requesting a free photo and did not include your postal mailing address, please e-mail us again and include the address. If you already did, please disregard this automatically generated message. Allow at least 4-6 weeks for your request to be processed. Pictures will be sent by postal mail, not e-mail. Due to high volumes of mail being handled, we cannot reply personally to your questions or comments.

One autograph request per e-mail, please. Any message with more than one recipient in the "to:" line, or that has undisclosed recipients, or that uses "cc:" (carbon-copy) or "bcc:" (blind carbon-copy) may be filtered and automatically rejected.

We reserve the right to limit the number of photos which will be sent to any individual requestor. These complimentary photos are not approved for auction or resale.

Wahkeenah 22:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

There are good points that both sides of this little "scuffle" are presenting, but it seems we are having difficulties coming to an agreeable solution that excepts both ideas.

First of all, We cannot have a mugshot as the main picture of a person's article, it's presenting a blatant negative point-of-view, and pretty much goes against all of Wikipedia's ideals. Wikipedia's highest priority is that it presents a neutral point-of-view, regardless of all other policies.

I agree with User:Ed g2s that we should have a public domain image at the front, but I cannot agree that a mugshot is the equivalent of any NPOV photo. An alertnative, yes, but hardly an equivalent.

On a separate note: Please Assume good faith in User:Ed g2s intentions. He's hardly a "POV pusher", he's simply keeping a policy in check. (Although, possibly a bit overzealous in his efforts). Thank you, and I hope we can come to an agreeable solution. -- The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake ^{Prophesize) 17:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too much talk

I've put a new free image there. Thanks to Jkelly for the suggestion. --Abu Badali 17:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Philanthropy

Where exactly does this quote: "[a]n organization that brings brain-tumor patients and their families to Tinseltown for a VIP experience." come from? I googled it and this page was the only thing that came up. It's a good description, but I want to make sure it's real.

[edit] More flickr images

These may prove useful: [6], [7] ˉˉ^anetode╞┬╡ 05:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Those images are tagged as being licensed undeer a free Creative Commons license in Flickr, but they are actually a copyvio from GettyImages. I had once uploaded one of those images to commons and used here, foolean by the wrong licensing info. Some user noticed it was a copyvio and the image was prompty deleted. --Abu Badali 06:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

They are also not ugly enough to suit the the above user's standards. Of course they gave you permission to use that one; it's worthless. Even the mugshot looks better. Wahkeenah 11:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh shut up, will you? While I agree Abu's practices can be annoying at some points, he is perfectly correct with his statements in this case. We cannot steal images created by professional photographers. It's their life, and if we steal it, it's like stealing cars of a auto dealership lot. -- Zanimum 15:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unfree image comming

I just hope this edition was not done with the intention of a later addition of an unfree image :( --Abu Badali 22:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• You could allow it, if it's ugly enough. Wahkeenah 23:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

the picture is ugly, why is it there? someone must be jealous of her looks if they keep changing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlepaulscholes (talk • contribs)

Those image are there because they the only free licensed images for this person we have. You may want to read WP:IUP for some insight on what images are allowed/preferred by Wikipedia. And don't be shy to leave a message if you have any specific doubts on the issue. Best regards, --Abu Badali 03:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

This article seems to possess some POV issues. I like the subtle condescention it displays towards it's subject at several points:

" an American glamour model, television personality, singer and Razzie Award winning actress." It is debatable whether her Razzie awards are important enought to mention in the lead. The Razzies are not as famous as some people might expect, not to mention it's pretty condescending.

"Prince's company, marking the start of a short-lived rap career. Electra's music career ended as quickly as it began with the release of her debut album." — Mocking tone in the second sentence.

"Her acting work is regularly derided by critics; in the Roger Ebert review of the film Dirty Love, "The Carmen Electra character, meanwhile, struts around like a "ho" in a bad music video, speaking black street talk as if she learned it phonetically, and pulling out a gun and holding it to a man's head because she thinks, obviously, that pulling guns on guys is expected of any authentic black woman. A scene like that would be insulting in any other movie; here it possibly distracts her from doing something even more debasing".[8]" — Wouldn't it be enough to say her acting is generally derided by critics without including a long quote from a scathing, mocking review?

"Electra achieved notoriety during her on-again, off-again marriage to basketball star Dennis Rodman from 1998 to 1999." Notoriety is POV should be publicity or something of the sort, it's not like they were Bonnie and Clyde.

"Borrowing another page from fellow Baywatch companion Anderson's publicity playbook" — Mocking tone also states that she is a Pam Anderon rip-off.

"On Baywatch: "I never had my own name on a bathing suit on "Baywatch". I was always given one that said Pamela (Anderson) or Yasmine (Bleeth). I earned my own suit, at the end of the season, which I now have framed"." — This might have been included only to ridicule her as Baywatch is often seen trivial and her acting on it was notoriously poor.

Overall, I'm not sure what she did to anyone to deserve this amount of derision. Sure she's a poor actress and is not exactly leading the most meaningul life but who cares? She seems like a nice enough person, I can't understand why anyone would hate her enough to lace the article with this much condescention. I'm saying all this in the hope that someone will fix it. I'm not going to do it myself because it would require coming back to check up on the article and I don't really care about her that much. Also I would probably involve some edit warring. Lastly, I probably wont respond to this (at least not any time soon). Quadzilla99 08:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Some of it borders violating the living persons biography policy, causing this article to be a liability. If you feel some of it is libelous, please delete it before I stubbify it. --w^{L<speak·check>} 09:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Well it's easily fixable (and I fixed it) but it will probably end up back in there in a day or two and I'm not personally going to put this on my watchlist or check up on it. I looked at the Razzie page but didn't see her name in their biref history; you woud probably have to look at each year's results to see supporting actress results and I'm not going to do that:[9] Quadzilla99 09:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

The picture is awful! You'd never figure she was a sex symbol from it...Nukleoptra 20:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I've managed to find a photographer to release a new replacement image. -- Zanimum 14:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joan Jett

Why does someone keep removing the part about Electra's relationship with Joan Jett? A source has even been provided to back the claims up! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.29.215.202 (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

The joan jett thing is even documented in leading UK papers today. -I wish I was Joan Jett!!!!!!!!!

There really isn't a good reason to exclude the information, or at least the speculation. Andral 04:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

That is intresting to read that she had one to Joan Jett.And i think also there isnt a reson.

Eris Lucan7* Su/08.07/UTC+1

[edit] Alledged Steve Berumen Affair

Get a citation for this passage before you re-add it to the Electra article. For all we know, this was the guy with tape on his glasses and a pocket protector that Electra went to high school with.

72.82.185.157 07:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect From Tara Patrick?

Why does Tara Patrick redirect to Carmen Electra. These are two different people. I understand that Camrmen's birth name might have been Tara Patrick but their is also a porn star by the name of Tara Patrick as well. If you click the link at the top, the redirect page leads back to porn star's page and not one of Electra. How does one go about fixing this? Dfprisco 13:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Because I believe you've made the mistake that the redirects are intended to prevent: the porn star's professional name is Tera Patrick, not Tara (spelt with an E, not an A). Tara Patrick redirects to Carmen Electra since that's her birth name which has been used occassionally, but there's a redirect to Tera Patrick in case of an innocent typo. Tabercil 15:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unfinished Biography

Carmen - was a member of The Pussycat Dolls when the glamorous group was a dance troupe. According to AskMen. I believe I have seen her in a pornography as well. Although I am not sure how many videos she did. All I can remember is there were firemen in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.241.127.162 (talk) 17:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)