Talk:Laura Angel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia.
Pornography Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Pornography, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to pornography-related topics 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 the discussion.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Citations required

Aside from the POV stuff I went through and removed, the article looks good, but it has no references. I've also removed the video cover, since we're not offering critical commentary on the work itself, per Wikipedia's fair use policy. When going through to cite the work, note that it should be cited with reliable sources. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — 00:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] final word on brussels fan picture

it was deleted on request and

2. even when once shared for public use on wikipedia no commercial use is allowed or intended and

3. the wikipedia logic to not accept pictures tagged as cc-by-nc is flawed in that a "fair use" image license can eventually superseed a picture exclusively tagged as public domain for NO COMMERCIAL use. What does that mean? The cc-by-nc licensed picture gets deleted and replaced by a copyrighted picture under a fair use claim. You don't need to be lawyer to raise an eyebrow about the ill-logic. I guess for such cases the policy to "always use a more free alternative if one is available." comes to play. :)

Please note that no text, no music samples and no pictures I upload are licensed for commercial use in any way. If Wikipedia can not accept cc-by-nc I will not be able to participate. That's why I won't add anything here but remove some spam. Further I do not want to be affiliated in any way with commercial wikipedia spin-offs combining any of my media with new unverified text from anonymous posters and publish it in semi-protected name spaces. J mirwais 11:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Non fair use image removed

I've taken out the DVD cover because it is currently not fair use. If supporting text indicating why this is important enough to be expounded upon in the article is added (with reliable third party support of course) it can go back in. - brenneman {L} 14:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Fair use images and original article

I don't understand this neurotic compulsion that people seem to have to scrap all of my contributions to this article. The fourth paragraph that was previously removed ("On camera, she specializes in..."), and which I have now reinstated, contains relevant description for this article. Similar descriptions appear in other porn-related articles on wikipedia. As for the pictures, the lead image is a promotional photo head shot and it is a much better representation of the subject than an amateur fan pic. The "Helles Belles" image illustrates relevant text in the article. In fact, fair use rationales and appropriate licensing tags have been provided for both of these images. I don't understand what the problem is since both images are regularly used for promotional purposes by the copyright holder to market Laura Angel and products related to her. Thus, the appearance of these same images on wikipedia is altogether fair and appropriate as an accurate visual representation of the subject. Also, both of the images I have added to this article are much more characteristic of Laura's professional appearance than the Brussels fan pic. If someone wants to expand the article and add the fan pic somewhere alongside further text down below they are free to do so. However, I request that people refrain from taking out perfectly legitimate and accurate contributions that have already been made to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaiwills (talk • contribs) 00:15, 29 September 2006

-> see topic "Lead Image" PartySan CZ 22:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enough!

I have restored and incorporated PartySan's contributions into the article as well as my own, so there should be no further cause for complaint. I still don't like the b/w snapshot, as it is not particularly relevant or visually appealing within the body of the text, so I have relegated it to the photo gallery. What I don't appreciate is people taking shots at me on the discussion board just because I object to their actions of junking my valid contributions for silly, petty reasons and asking how to get me banned. I don't like personal comments behind my back and users making fun of me just because I contribute to certain articles. If you check all of my contributions, you will see that I have an interest in a whole range of subjects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaiwills (talk • contribs) 01:03, 01 October 2006


[edit] on (fair use) DVD covers

Since the most succesful film for Laura was Harcèlement au féminin, where she was awarded the Hot d'Or as best European acctress, this has to be the cover of choice. (in case ANY cover display is fair use of course). So farewell Hells Belles, welcome Harcèlement au féminin. I DO like this snapshot PartySan CZ posted , yes I REALLY do  ;) J mirwais 09:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

With regret, I've removed all the copyrighted images from this gallery. I also took out the brussel's image. But only because it's now the lead image. For a cover image to be fair use, it has to have a section demonstrating how it's relevant to an entry. This doesn't mean just the one that they were most famous for, either. The Jessica Alba playboy shot is a good example, the cover represents a notable event with third party sources. Write a nice chunk of prose first then it becomes fair use. - brenneman {L} 11:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Headshot

The headshot is copyright, the fan-pic is not. There is really no room for discussion on this. We always use free images where there is one available.

  • If there is a free image available, then there is no fair use to be had.
  • Thus replacing a public domain image with a copyright one constitutes copyright infringement.

Clearly as I edit this article I would be loathe to use any adminstrative rights, but a notice to the adminstrator's notice board would take all of thirty seconds to draw a response. Does everyone understand this?
brenneman {L} 11:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The head shot is compliant with the Fair Use Policy as it represents her professional appearance and no such free image could be created or acquired. The fan pics are amateurish-looking and are not representative of what makes the subject of this article a person of interest. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaiwills (talk • contribs) .
That is a pretty poor fair use claim. Galleries of "fair use" images are never acceptable. - Geni 13:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lead image

The head shot is a perfectly reasonable fair-use image with licensing tags and a fair-use rationale to support it. Even that other guy, PartySanz, preferred the head shot as the lead image for this article. I have used similar fair-use images (head shots) for other articles and there have been no complaints from any editors about it. The other b/w pic is poor quality and not an accurate visual representation of the subject insofar as she is a person of interest. I really don't understand this. This is a really dumb and illogical argument. I don't understand why we can't just leave the article the way it is now. Please don't message me back saying that Wikipedia is going to get sued if the head shot is the lead image because that is total nonsense. The way some of you people keep insisting that head shots in some articles are OK and others must be removed is totally arbitrary, inconsistent and silly. The use of the image is most certainly in compliance with the fair use policy as a simple visual representation of the subject. --Jaiwills

  • hello Jaiwills,
All "fair use" images were removed in my last edit (consequently I had to remove the small award picture too *sigh*). I wasn't aware fair use tags are a no go for galleries and was already happy sorting out the numerous tags and how to upload stuff. I do like this old headshot picture too, but it's not gonna happen until the conditions described by User:Aaron Brenneman are met. (However you might want to try to contact the German company Goldlight to ask for a promotional license.)
In my humble opinion the "brussels fan picture" is just as nice as the other one, on second thought I like it even better, but it was removed so that there is only one free picture left and that's the snapshot you hate so much for reasons beyond me. I uploaded it now in a bigger version for the box on the left and I luv it.
By the way it's PartySan not Partysanz or Party San, it's a wordplay derrived from partisan :) So i'm no San more of a Jeanne d'Arc and most certainly nuts but very rarely unfriendly ;) *kicking back with a smile* PartySan CZ 15:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
The fact is, we choose free images over non-free images, because Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia. The policy is "always use a more free alternative if one is available." I suggest you comply with that policy if you wish to continue editing here. — Matt Crypto 19:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] new template

I propose the deletion of the old template for several reasons:

1. the way of presenting adult actor/esses was unfortunately copied from the adult industry, (where it's always more voguish to present measurements rather than a diploma) thus many adult actors are displayed in questionable ways, reducing the template for an adult actors biography to something that'd fit a slavery market rather than presenting a person in the same way as it is done for other performers like singers, painters or mainstream actors - focusing on relevant and steady information like birth, career start, greatest successes or awards instead of listing shoesize, breastsize, blood type, weight or even hair-lenght. If not supplied by the adult actors themselves this stuff (including sexual orientation) is usually added by fans, agencies or adult companies trying to push their movies, not to even begin with the encyclopaedic value of such information, these "informations" are prone to NOT being verifiable and in most cases contributors can neither come up with reliable sources nor preserve a neutral point of view (rather than a fetishistic one). Just by the way, I have never seen so many gay porn actors turned hetero as on wikipedia :)

2. Not only is the Information presented in the current template most often unverifiable and non-notable it is also subject to change (especially weight, measurements, piercing, tattooing). There is a reason we don't archive this kind of volatil data on mainstream actors. And we don't use such data on mainstream mannequins either, just check articles like e.g. Claudia Schiffer or Tyra Banks, as such details are something between superfluous and detrimental (given they may not only be unverifiable but as a matter of fact simply wrong) to the purpose of a biography on a person. It also reduces and objectifies performers to their body measurements leading the idea of a balanced biography ad absurdum by giving weight to trivia but suppressing much more relevant data like education, oppucations, matrial status or retirement. Besides no one becomes noteable because of having blue eyes, Blood type 0 and a short-hair cut. This kind of data has no encyclopaedic value at all.

The current adult bio template includes source links to database websites like IMdb , EAfd , "eurobabeindex" and lately AFDb.

3. The information on adult actors on imdb is usually added by "fans" often collected from unverified google sources, which can lead to breathtaking imaginative biographies. While imdb can unquestionable be a useful source for mainstream actors the reverse does not seem to be true on adult actors, as these fan supplied information is either handled very carelessly by the imdb staff or NOT verified at all. I checked three European adult actors I happen to know and found three bogus bios with fake data (...luckily I might add). So even if you use an imdb link on adult actors using the regular actors template, you should not propose this as a most trustworthy "end it all" source on adult actors, it simply is not. The imdb data on adult actors is neither verified nor reliable. As an aside, it is more than just a hassle to simply delete a bogus biography from imdb without offering them a "better", corrected or somehow more informative version than what they have, even if one does NOT intend to ever do so for obvious reasons.

4. IAFD. Basically the same problems as with imdb, however this database claims to be specialized in Adult Actors. IAFD is a fan-database with a dedicated staff of porn fans, who I would have liked to think of as people who'd take great enthusiasm in providing "correct" information on (European) starlets. They even supply an easy to use "correction form" on their ID templates, so far so good? No. they do not correct entries, as I have czeched out myself. The best (though still way incomplete) database on my journey through the internet so far was EGAFD(European Girls Adult Film Database). Which could be included in this wiki - so guys looking for a filmography have a starting point. :)

5. The current adult actors template also includes a link function to a side called eurobabeindex .com which is by far the worst of the bunch. The nature of this fansite is to list female eastern european "pornstars", however on every performer ID table there is a "comment" function and you will find abusive remarks on almost all "comment pages" on each and every performer listed at this index, which won't get deleted in months by the site administrators. To link to such a website from within wikipedia is, in my humble opinion, offensive and unacceptable. Moreover "they" intentional misrepresent retired actresses as being "available" and do not remove actresses on request from their "index" unless you engage a lawyer.

6. Finally we have the American AFDB site. Well, honestly, AFDB is nothing more than an adult industry link farm for online retailers (just like IAFD, as an aside this database lately invented the "interracial tag", just when you think it can't get worse...). There are hundreds of such spam sites and in my opinion there is no reason to support any one of them on an encyclopedia. With more and more companies trying to use wikipedia for advertising purposes, why even give them a hand to spam wikipedia by including such retail portals to a template? Every month another "database" on porn actors pops up somewhere. Since none of them seems to use verfied data none of them can be trusted as an reliable source either. They seem to be generated in an automatic way. So if you find the same type of information on a performer five times, it doesn't mean this information is true... not by a long shot.

7. For the Bio on Laura Angel this template is now redundant to the regular artists template

It is based on the established regular actors infobox, as it is sufficient to include a portrait shot (you deleted mine - so forget about me adding another any time soon), age, "years active" and awards as well as some filmography highlights rather than a list of 100 movies, 250 compilations and a hotlink to every portal spam site google spits out on the first page.

Please, remember that we're talking about real people here, not a bunch of vegetables which somehow happen to have a biography - because that is how the current adult actors template looks like, even more so when little information is available and we just stare at a bunch of body index numbers, a fair use picture and the usual personal point of view statements like pornsztar "so and so" is most famous for >> insert your favorite fetish here <<.

--PartySan CZ 12:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)