Talk:Carmen Electra/Archive 1

Archive 1

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

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)

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 Tara 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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Well, Where was she Born?

Canada or Ohio? Someone please shed some light. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.180.222 (talk) 04:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Main Picture

Of the 3 pictures on her page, why is the least flattering one used as her main picture? 18:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Early life

In this paragraph it only said about her father that he was a gay porn star specializing in the anal genre. The reference pointed to a biography on a web site that did NOT say that. It said that he was a guitarist and entertainer. I checked her facebook page, and that says the same. So I edited the article, for me that seems the right thing to do. I think it is unethical to include such information if it is not something that one can document through having a reliable source and references showing this. Just posted this on the talk page in case the consensus amongst other contributors should be that the removed information should be included, possibly in addition to "guitarist and entertainer", but my view is that the latter is more than enough information about her father's occupation (if he should be a porn star, I guess that "entertainer" would cover that well enough). A point for me is also that it is reasonable to assume that many people are judgemental about such an occupation. For that reason I do not think that it is fair to list a parent's such occupation as part of describing their children (and this page is about Carmen Electra, not about her father). Peapeam (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Santiagokdasilva1, 18 August 2011

Carmen Electra has worked for and with the pussycat dolls for years now. Making her a respectfull showgirl(vedette) being that shes worked with the burlesque dance ensemble in live stage perfomences for years in singing and dancing.My point is that Electra should also have showgirl/vedette in her occupations stats being that she perfomes as one with the dolls.Please think about this message and acsept it. (sorry about the spelling im from Uruguay). Santiagokdasilva1 (talk) 15:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The article already says she's a singer, dancer and entertainer, there's no need to be overly-specific in the lead or infobox. If you wanted to add some information about her Pussycat Dolls career in the Career section, it would definitely be warranted in that context. — Bility (talk) 16:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Britain's got talent

Carmen has been a stand in judge on Britains go talent 2012. She stood in for judge Amanda Holden when Amanada Holden gave birth to her baby and was in critical condition in hospital. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.196.106 (talk)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Also, please provide reliable sources for the change you're requesting. Thanks for the info!   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

It has been added by another community editor...so...THERE! =P Do you realy need reliable sources to add somthing like that? lol Just watch Britains got talent 2012 on Youtube and you shall see her sitting there as a judge over the last 4 weeks or so. =) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.130.242 (talk) 03:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

When an article is semi-protected to block on-going vandalism and an anonymous editor suggests a change, they must be very specific about what needs to be changed (Change "We the people, in order to form..." to "We the people of the United States of America, in order to form...".) and generally must provide a reliable source. To avoid such problems in the future, you'll need to be more specific and provide sources or establish an account. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

She is not listed among the judges on the show's official site. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 November 2012

Please delete Partner Rob Patterson because he is no longer Carmen's partner. Kimroxy52 (talk) 21:43, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

 Not done. Provide a source. gwickwire | Leave a message 22:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Pussycat Dolls

It says that she is known for being part of the Pussycat Dolls - but then there is no mention of how her involvement with them fits into her career. -- Beardo (talk) 10:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

2013 - potential to replace current lead image?

Rather than simply parachute in and change it, I wanted to discuss the fact that I'm not sure that the current lead image is the best choice based on Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images, especially as pertains to the orientation of faces (and the image lifecycle). I would be inclined to suggest changing it to the image shown at right. And while it is not mandatory, the guideline that has motivated my interest in possibly changing the primary Carmen pic reads:

It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text. However, it is not necessary to reverse an image simply to have the subject facing the text. (WP:MOSIM)

Obviously the current picture does not portray Carmen's face/eyes looking toward the text, but rather, does the opposite. Stopping briefly and reading from the guidelines: Lead images should be images that are natural and appropriate visual representations of the topic; they not only should be illustrating the topic specifically, but should also be the type of image that is used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see. ---> OK, while I don't think the current image choice fails on that criteria, the fact that it is now seven (7) years old - not insignificant in the context of a model/actress/celebrity - has also got me thinking. In a BLP on a subject of Carmen's age who became famous for being super-hot when she was much younger, is it most appropriate to always use for main image a pic from her younger days (33 vs 40)? As I illustrate with the image at right, there are present-day (2013) Carmen images available in the Commons: {{Commons category|Carmen Electra}}. Thoughts? Azx2 06:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support: assuming there's no credible challenge to the licensing. (As a side comment, having nothing to do with content but based on proportion for the infobox, I'd prefer cropping a tiny amount off the bottom – about midway in the space between the downward-pointing leaf and the one below it.) Fat&Happy (talk) 19:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• Reply: thanks for weighing in on this, Fat&Happy. I think we should be fine w.r.t. licensing, as the creator of the work was also the uploader: "Tsui," who is Manfred Werner (*1968) from Vienna, Austria. He snapped a series of pics of Carmen when she appeared at Life Ball 2013 at the square in front of the city hall of Vienna, Vienna, Austria, and he's released those images under CC-BY-SA-3.0. Tsui caught Carmen both on the 'magenta carpet' and performing. I think my preference is for #1 (the original image I suggested), and I would Support the Suggestion to crop "a tiny amount off the bottom – about midway in the space between the downward-pointing leaf and the one below it." Nevertheless, two other shots one might consider can be seen below (alongside a third image of Carmen in the fashion show by Roberto Cavalli, at opening of Life Ball 2013). Looking fwd to hearing back from you and from some others, hopefully... Azx2 20:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• 
  Carmen in Austria #2
• 
  Carmen in Austria #3
• 
  Carmen in Austria #4

Azx2 was so kind, to ask for my opinion on my talk page at Commons.
As far as the licensing is concerned: I had an accreditation as a photographer and was there among the professionals. The images on the magenta carpet were taken at the spot where the guests passing by posed for the photographers. The license is CC-by-sa3.0, the standard license used on Commons. So I don't see any problem.
My personal favorite as a portrait is #3 above, where she looks and smiles at the camera over her shoulder. On the other hand, the man in the background may be a little disturbing. But whichever image you choose, it's always good to see one of my images used in Wikipedia. That's what I make them for. If you want to crop it: sure, why not. If cropping it at the bottom as described above I would also crop half of the space above the top of her head. But please do not overwrite the original, use something like "File:Life Ball 2013 - magenta carpet Carmen Electra 01 crop.jpg". --Tsui (talk) 22:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The over-the-shoulder glance is my favorite of the three also. For some reason, though, I think the first shot may be just a little more "encyclopedic" for the introductory image in the infobox, but it probably wouldn't take much effort to convince me otherwise.

As far as cropping goes, image 3 would seem not to need any at all. If we use image 1, I think part of my original reaction was based on aspect ratio, but part was a subconscious effort to make it more of a pure head-shot by centering the face a bit more. That second effect would be lessened by also cropping some off the top. Bearing in mind that I have never been accused of having any artistic talent, ability, or taste, perhaps we would be better – at least initially – not trying to fix that which is not widely seen as broken. Let's just decide between the two excellent images and add one as is; in the unlikely event that there are a lot of complaints about the choice or the size, we can consider adjustments then. Fat&Happy (talk) 23:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tsui, hi Fat&Happy. Good to hear from you both. I'm going to switch my preference to image #3. F&H, with two of us willing to support #3, does that make it any easier for you to also pick #3 instead of #1? Like you noted above, we wouldn't have to crop #3 if we use it but #1 we would. Believe it or not, I understand what you're saying w/ respect to the first shot possibly being a little more "encyclopedic", although I think #3 is an equally viable candidate, just different in the intimacy it conveys to the reader, which isn't there w/ #1 since there's no eye contact. I propose we go w/ #3, make the change and if there's feedback (good or bad) we'll collect it here like you said and then try to sort things out from there. Azx2 10:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. I vote Go For It. Fat&Happy (talk) 14:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Done! ... Now Tsui & Fat&Happy: can I get your feedback on what we should do with the previous lead image, which I moved down into the main body of the article, in place of a not-so-great snap of her face? Should we stick w/ that 3/4 length shot, or go for the full body shot below? Or perhaps one of the other Life Ball 2013 pics? And in any case, should we "flip" the image (uploading a new copy but not replacing the original) so that Carmen's eyes are facing towards the left (at the article text) per the WP:MOSIM)? It's a simple step and there won't be any "backwards" text visible in the photo that would give it away. (See below for possible 2nd images...and if you don't think any of the ones I selected are appropriate, here's the link to her Commons gallery: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Carmen_Electra - please see if there's a second pic that works. Thanks again for your feedback. Azx2 16:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• 
  1) Carmen 2007, 3/4-body
• 
  2) Carmen 2007, full-body
• 
  3) Carmen 2007, full-body
• 
  4) Carmen 2013, Life Ball
• 
  5) Carmen 2013, Life Ball (no flip req'd)

Personally I like picture number 2. It's a good pose and the photographers concentrating on her make a good background (better then their declined interest on picture 3). Number 1 is good as well. Only another picture from Life Ball in addition to the portrait would be too one-sided I think. If you want to add a third picture, her being carried during the fashion show or performing inside the city hall, I'd be happy to see my pictures used. I just don't know about the policies here on en.wikipedia concerning the amount of images in one article.

As for a possible flip, because she is orientated to the right, I would not do that (in fact, I never do it). It would adulterate (is that the right term in English?) a picture, which should first of all be of documentary value. --Tsui (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Reply: Thanks for the quick response, Tsui. I like picture #2 as well, though I acknowledge your concern about "adulterating" the image by flipping/mirroring it. That probably wasn't a great idea on my part, especially as the WP:MOSIM guidelines make clear that it's not required that subject's eyes face text in an article when placing a picture. So let's forget I even suggested that (plus, if the article is eventually expanded sufficiently, placing that image on the left side would mean Carmen's eyes did face the text! lol). You're also probably right that having two pictures from the same event is not the best use of resources, given that there are some other viable images (like #2 above, as you note). Very good point as well about the suitability of #2-above based on the photographers concentrating on her (vs. their disinterest in #3). I will wait a bit to hear from Fat&Happy and see what his response is before going ahead and changing the second image to File:Carmen Electra @ I want Candy London Movie Premiere 05.jpg (#2-above). Thanks again!! Azx2 17:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I share the aversion to flipping the picture. Azx2, you briefly alluded to a point I was planning to make – we are greatly constrained by the fact that the article text is rather, um... sparse? In my browser window, not even full-screen wide, the infobox completely extends through the first main-text section and into its bottom separator line. Additional pictures, unless in a gallery or rendered in miniscule sizes, will tend to overwhelm the text and make it look pretty bad throughout.

I have one possible suggestion. The "Other work" subsection of "Career" doesn't seem all that necessary. Until the textual content is fleshed out (no pun intended) a bit, would we consider eliminating that heading and moving the picture to the left of the page and up, say with the top/insertion point just at the beginning of the third paragraph (the short one about further Playboy appearances). My response here is somewhat delayed because I was playing with options, and at least in my browser configuration, that one looks pretty good.

I could go with either the first or second picture; I like the content of the second better, but the closer detail of the first. Since you both agree that the second is better without my quibble, let's say that one. Fat&Happy (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Fat&Happy, thanks for the feedback. At least we can be bluntly-honest about the fact that the article needs to be expanded - the good thing is there's no shortage of material out there to flesh out (hehe) C.E.'s biography (it's just a question of having the time to gather it all together and write it up). I actually share your appreciation for the detail of the first picture from 2007, but still prefer the second one as it provides full-body review (not trivial in the case of a subject who has modeled extensively and developed significant fame based on appearance and physicality). Hopefully though it won't be too too long before there is sufficient, expanded (fleshed-out lol...) text to justify additional images, b/c like you noted, even two now is close to overwhelming.

That said, I support your suggestion to remove the career sub-section header as a means to making the layout more friendly to a second picture, which would then be inserted on the left, where you determined. I'll go ahead and make the change but do review it to ensure that the results conform to what you expected. Thanks. Azx2 21:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Done! ... second image now changed per discussion above. Azx2 21:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I of course think it looks fine. Let's see if anyone else has anything to say. Fat&Happy (talk) 23:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Archiving

Unless someone objects convincingly, I'm going to set-up auto-archiving on this talk page to clean things up and...archive the old discussions. Azx2 21:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Looking back, archiving is definitely needed. (Side note: did you notice the amount of earlier discussion about images?) I'm not sure the activity justifies a 31-day limit though; maybe 90 or 180? Fat&Happy (talk) 23:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I did see there were quite a few messages about images, including some concerning attempts to use CE's mugshot as main image?! lol... Sheesh. Looks like the archive bot made a pass already. Can we simply change the parameter from 31 to 90 or 180 days? Probably, right? (I've never adjusted the interval after-the-fact, hence why idk what's involved). The code appears at the top of the talk page source, before the first discussion header. It's pretty self-explanatory, so you can just change 31 to 90 or... Honestly, whatever you're more comfortable w/... Azx2 02:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, Miszabot's pretty straightforward. Since I was in here doing something else, I bumped it to 90. Also reduced minthreads to keep down to 1 instead of 3, though that somewhat offsets making the retention days higher. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for taking the initiative on that. I've been adding a few things too. Pleasure collaborating w/ you on this... Azx2 04:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

How to credit/list BOOK/authorship?

Electra is author of one proper book, How to Be Sexy with Sheryl Berk. Hardcover: 144 pages Publisher: Broadway (May 8, 2007) Language: English ISBN-10: 0767925416 ASIN: B0027IQB2E Where/how would we note this in the main body of the article, and would we create a new sub-section "Bibliography" or something like that to list it as one of her "Credits"? Azx2 04:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Career and subsections

Concerning the Career section: should this section be rewritten in straight chronological form, or would it be better to rewrite it such that it is sub-divided into career subsections based on...idk...say, media types (ex. TV, film (or TV/film), music, dance (or music/dance), modeling, other/etc?) or even professional capacity (ex. acting, modeling, singing/dancing, spokesperson)? There's a lot of potential here in rewriting the career section in a non-POV way that will present a fair representation of Carmen Electra's body of work, and I genuinely think it would be possible with the efforts of just a few of us to quickly get this article up to GA-status. Before I put any more time into it, however, I would very much so like to hear what others think on how best to structure the article going forward. Cheers Azx2 17:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Archiving unsigned

Hey guys, we set up autoarchiving last summer (August 2013) - looks good except that it didn't archive the two sub-sections above b/c the comments were "unsigned" and had a template applied to them.

Does anyone know how we can make those sections go into the archive?? It looks hideous to see such old and pseudo-unsigned comments on the talk page and I was caught out for a second wondering what happened to all our convos but why these two were left behind...

Thanks...Azx2 01:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2014 --- The name of Carmen's 2014 movie is "Lap Dance" NOT "Monica"

| 2012 |2-Headed Shark Attack |- | 2014 |Lap Dance |} Gregcarternexus (talk) 15:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Done NiciVampireHeart 16:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Personal Life

In the '90s, Carmen Electra was romantically involved with Prince, as well as B-Real (the lead rapper of Cypress Hill), and yet there is no mention of either romance. For the sake of accuracy, those relationships should be noted. Omitting them without sufficient reason is indicative of an agenda.69.118.240.103 (talk) 15:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Carmen Electra/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

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)

Last edited at 06:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 14:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Carmen Electra. 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://web.archive.org/web/20131023200605/http://movies.yahoo.com/person/carmen-electra/biography.html to http://movies.yahoo.com/person/carmen-electra/biography.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727175024/http://media.pituitary.org/pdf/H2HCharityPoker0606.pdf to http://media.pituitary.org/pdf/H2HCharityPoker0606.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090623054329/http://www.elevatehope.org:80/events/fjartists.php to http://www.elevatehope.org/events/fjartists.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carmen Electra. 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://web.archive.org/web/20090626151435/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_2_95/ai_53390246/ to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_2_95/ai_53390246/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Carmen Electra. 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://web.archive.org/web/20131206234439/http://speakcarmenese.com/carmenelectratimeline.html to http://www.speakcarmenese.com/carmenelectratimeline.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110826085107/http://speakcarmenese.com/glamour.html to http://www.speakcarmenese.com/glamour.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090206223157/http://www.factorz.com/carmen-electra to http://www.factorz.com/carmen-electra

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Carmen Electra-2006.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 09:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2018

Please change "American Vampire (1998)" to "American Vampire (1997)", as this was the actual release date. 2.90.208.64 (talk) 06:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done DannyS712 (talk) 07:24, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Pornstar?

Hi. Why is there no mention of Carmen Electra's start as a pornstar? Stevenmitchell (talk) 10:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Battlebots?

I heard a radio interview that mentioned she was a host. Sounded embarrassing, no wonder its not mentioned. 2603:7000:6540:C200:D1E2:31E2:5161:8C5C (talk) 13:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)