Talk:Yasmine Bleeth/Archive 1

Completely unverifiable, but I wanted to mention it
If you're ever in Joshua Tree National Park, there's a really good face for rock climbing that is known as The Yasmine Bleeth (right next to The Britney Spears). They're in the Mongolia area. You'll have to find a local, though; I'm almost 100% certain that the park rangers don't endorse the hill. --Mareino 21:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Yasmine Bleeth's mug shot
I hope that if your mother dies due to a terribly painful death like inflammatory breast cancer like Yasmine Bleeth's mother, when Yasmine was only 20 years old, that someone will not throw it in your face for succumbing to a cocaine addiction temporarily.

Your excuse that it's the only public domain picture is pathetic. What if the only public domain picture was a nude picture of her? Would you post that to her site? Have you no shame? Bcsurvivor 19:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There are over 200 mugshots in the Wikipedia, from Chris Tucker to Nick Nolte to Ozzy Osborne to Rush Limbaugh. There does not seem to be any general Wikipedia policy to exclude mugshots due to anyone's "shame". If there is one, please point it out. And if there isn't one, please explain why Yasmine Bleeth's specifically should be excluded, given the others being included. Surely the other people had mothers as well. AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think that there should be any mugshots on wikipedia. This isn't the FBI's Most Wanted List, is it?  It's not as though anyone is looking for these people because they escaped from the law, is it?  If people like Halle Berry don't have their mugshot on wikipedia, than no one's mugshot should be on it.  You cannot unfairly discriminate against some people but not others. Bcsurvivor 15:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Then you seem to want to make a policy change. There are ways to do that, see Policies and guidelines, you just need to get community consensus and it will be done. But just this one article isn't the place to do that. About Halle Berry, I can't find her mugshot on the usual places (http://mugshots.com, http://thesmokinggun.com, ...). If it could be found, it would likely be added. Finally, don't forget that Yasmine Bleeth herself wrote about her arrest and addiction in a widely published magazine. It's important. AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You are looking at this backward. The issue isn't why Bleeth's mug shot should be "excluded". The issue is why it should be included.  The idea that because someone has a mugshot it should automatically be included in wikipedia is silly.  There are other, more useful photos of her.  The mugshot adds nothing useful to the article so it isn't needed.  Let's move on to something less trivial. 2005 18:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for joining us.

The image should be included because: AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It documents an important event in the life of the subject of the article, one she herself wrote about. It's not a minor incident that had no effect on her - the addiction, and the arrest, which was an important part of her giving it up, had a major, huge, life-changing effect on her. Not trivial at all.
 * It is a public domain image, and the article doesn't have any others.
 * We have a precedent of the articles for Ozzy Osborne, Rush Limbaugh, Dudley Moore, and over 200 others throughout the Wikipedia.


 * The article documents the important event already. The mugshot adds next to nothing.  I just don't see why you would care to have this in the article, and of course some articles have mugshots and some don't. 2005 19:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that you are looking at this backward, AnonEMouse. Yasmine Bleeth was gracious enough to discuss her problems re: addiction and overcoming that addiction in order to help others - just as she attempted to help others by admitting that her mother died from inflammatory breast cancer even though many actresses who are relying upon their looks might have been discouraged from doing that - but she never voluntarily posted her own mug shot along with any magazine interviews that she did regarding her addiction. That's adding insult to injury.  Other celebrities refuse to even discuss their addictions and car accident episodes.


 * As I previously stated, wikipedia isn't the FBI's Most Wanted List or anything like that. I don't think that any mug shot should be posted to wikipedia just as I don't think that any pornography or other compromising photographs should be posted to wikipedia.  If anyone is that desperate to see a photo of someone, they can go to mugshots.com or to porno sites.  I didn't know about Ozzy Osborne, Rush Limbaugh, Dudley Moore, and over 200 others throughout the Wikipedia etc., but I'm tempted to go to those sites and delete those mug shots.  I'll investigate having the policy changed instead though so that no one decides to attempt to prevent me from adding valuable information to wikipedia.  Bcsurvivor 19:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Worth next to nothing? Like many pictures, it's worth a thousand words.
 * For the event, it describes, concisely and without bias, the effect of crashing a car under the influence of cocaine. Look at it. To me, it shows the horrible effect on someone who is sometimes called one of the X most beautiful on the Y (for nearly any X and Y) - but that's just my POV; writing that in the article would be biased, and words just don't convey the impact. The picture describes it better than I, or even Bleeth, ever could, and, unlike either her or my writing, without bias. That's for the event.
 * For the article as a whole, it's the only free picture. It can be reused in any reuse of the article without any copyright problems; the others can't. That's a big part of what the Wikipedia is about.
 * For the encyclopedia as a whole, it shows we won't discriminate, and only show mugshots of arrested rock stars and talk show hosts. AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You seem to be suggesting its usage rights are relevant to its use. Sorry, but that is again backwards.  It should not be used if it violated rights, but just because it does not doesn't mean that it should be used. 2005 20:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I seem to be suggesting quite a few things, not just one; I've even bulleted them. It should be used in the article because it's important, contributes a lot to the event, and it's an important event to the article; all as I wrote above. Instead, why shouldn't it be used according to you? Bcsurvivor seems to be saying because no mugshots should be used anywhere in the Wikipedia because they're compromising and shameful. Is that your point as well? Or are you still maintaining the picture adds nothing to the event, despite my largest point that it does, and more so than any text could? Do you begrudge the waste of 4 square inches on the page? AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It adds next to nothing. You disagree.  The little it adds is offset by its juvenile lookey-lou quality.  I can't imagine how you think it contributes "a lot" to anything.  This is an encyclopedia, not the Enquirer.  I'd encourage you to think of it that way. 2005 20:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, then we've apparently reached a fundamental disagreement. I think it has a lot of value, and am not worried about the lookey-lou (presumably meaning sensational?) quality. This is an encyclopedia, but of popular subjects, not merely academic ones; the Britannica would not be writing about Yasmine Bleeth in the first place. At least we're polite about it. Would you agree to a neutral mediation from an experienced party? Resolving disputes mentions the informal Mediation Cabal and the somewhat more formal Mediation Committee. I haven't tried either, so have no preference. I will agree to binding resolution from either, if you (one or both) will. AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This is about four messages more than my interest. I'm not sure what you want to mediate but I pass.  You and another person had a disagreement. I removed something.  I suggest you hope for someone to add whatever you want, or find something a little more important to worry about.  Good luck. 2005 23:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with 2005. This picture (which really just makes her look like she's very tired and needs a small amount of makeup for undereye shadows) makes the entire page look like something from a trash tabloid like the National Enquirer or worse.  It only hurts her career, and I think too many other entertainers have not been subjected to this type of abuse.  Why has her career been hurt so badly but celebrities like Halley Berry can be involved in a hit-and-run where she takes off after hitting someone and avoids undergoing a breathalizer until she's sobered up or gotten the traces of the drugs out of her system?  This actress has given back to society more than most because of her breast cancer advocacy as well as her anti-drug advocacy. That picture does not reflect that.  It causes a person to avoid even reading her bio - rather than learning how she has attempted to take her grief and mistakes and help others with what she's learned the hard way. Bcsurvivor 11:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * 2005, I'm trying to discuss or mediate to avoid an edit war: the article changing every few hours or days depending on who was the last one to edit it. Hopefully you agree that no one wants that, right? I still want the picture there, but apparently I haven't convinced you that it should be there. You have not convinced me that it should be gone -- I'm not even sure you are trying to convince me, frankly. Without being convinced, I won't just give up and go away, any more than you will. Do you see any solution besides an edit war? We tried discussion, that doesn't seem to work. I thought I saw another one: binding mediation. You don't want that. Do you see a better solution?
 * Bcsurvivor, please don't overestimate the effect of a picture in a Wikipedia article on the career of a well known actress. We're not as important as you seem to think. Second, we really shouldn't be writing an article with a viewpoint of the effect on the subject's entertainment career. We should be first of all concerned about making a thorough, comprehensive, readable, good article. Do you agree about that? AnonEMouse (squeak) 12:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * AnonEMouse, you've already been outvoted 2 to 1. If you examine Yasmine Bleeth's history, you'll see that I provided most of the information not only for her but for all of the movies, TV shows, TV guest appearance shows, etc. that she has been involved in.  I also provided many photographs of her which have been deleted because I didn't want to argue and fight about each one. Now what have you contributed to her site?  One mug shot?  Is that your goal - to provide mug shots whenever you can find them?  Are you the one who posted those 200 mug shots on wikipedia?  If so, I wouldn't be proud of it if I were you.  How much work does it take to swipe pictures from mugshot.com? Bcsurvivor 13:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy, it works based on community consensus. The only reason I'm "outvoted 2 to 1" is because there are only the 3 of us discussing here, and I asked 2005 to join us, even knowing he was against the image. We're not the complete Wikipedia community, not even all the involved editors for this article. Your argument that you provided most of the information for the article (it's not her site, by the way, but an article about her) and that I'm merely an interloper would have been persuasive -- I respect dedicated editors -- except when I went to check, I noticed that besides writing the article, (which you have added a lot to, no question, thank you), you do have a history of removing negative information about her. This includes a lot written by other editors, long before I was involved with the article. Your edits and comments include: So I don't think I'm here arguing against the consensus of the community; I suspect that the presence of the other 200 pictures throughout the WP shows the community consensus is to put booking photographs in when they are relevant, and that a link to it was here for almost 2 years since back in 2004, before any of the 3 of us edited the article, shows it is relevant here. I'd prefer to convince the two of you, or to have you convince me, but that's not the same as being "outvoted". AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * (This was not a "neutral point of view." She was just involved in an auto accident which could account for her not that unattractive picture.)
 * (If Halle Berry and others aren't listed as criminals, than Yasmine Bleeth should not be either.)
 * and even (without any comment) removing the External link to this very mugshot which had been there  | since 2004, for almost two years before you started editing the article.


 * There is more information devoted to Yasmine Bleeth's cocaine addiction than there is to her breast cancer advocacy, her marriage, her previous engagement, her family, her mother's death, etc. I agree that since she has been so open about her cocaine addiction as well as her mother's breast cancer, than it should be on this biography of her; but I think that wikipedia should remain a neutral point of view which means we don't slant the thing totally against her by posting a deliberate picture of her when she probably felt the worst that she ever felt in her life other than when her mother suddenly died a very, very painful death since inflammatory breast cancer is always extremely painful - that's one of its most defining characteristics.


 * If I had my way, the paragraph wouldn't be 'Cocaine Addiction' but I respect others if they want to highlight that. It originally said 'Probation' or something to that effect.


 * As I said, I also didn't argue when the entire gallery of photographs of her was removed without warning so that I couldn't even save it before it was deleted. I also didn't argue when the numerous other photographs of her were removed even though most of them were reworked by me before being posted.


 * One of the only things that I've objected to has been this mug shot. No one is hiding the fact that she was arrested, and that she was convicted of cocaine possession and received probabtion and community service, etc.  The only thing that is being deleted is this mug shot reference because I think that it goes too far to an extreme - as though someone from her past childhood wants to continue to punish her like she stated the girls did when she was in school.


 * I think her cocaine information is a very neutral point of view as it stands right now. I just added another quote from her that I came across today, and it again seems to imply that she felt very alone after her mother died and her father remarried and started a new family, etc.  The cocaine was replacing her lost family as well as friends and significant others.


 * Like 2005 stated, I feel that I've wasted too much valuable time on this one item. In the meantime, I've created more information about the TV guest spots that she's been on, and I've just found more photographs of some of her more obscure movies that I want to post, and I'm upset that I'm being forced to waste prescious time on this.  Don't you have more important things to do? Bcsurvivor 16:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * How about a compromise? Rather than display the image itself, we include a link to the image, something like: "Booking photograph at time of arrest." ? (You can suggest alternate text, I'm not set on these words.) That way anyone who really wants to see the photo, can, while those bothered by it, don't follow the link. It's not what you want, it's not what I want, but it could serve to peacefully end one of the longest 3-person discussions known to WP :-). AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Fine. Just to stop this discussion, but I continue to believe that it makes the article too biased against her and not neutral enough. BTW, I don't know whether you realize it or not, but that photo of her is the most common photo of her on the entire internet. A person would have to be extremely unfamiliar with the Internet if they couldn't help but stumble upon it if they ever decided to look her up. That's another reason that I don't think it should be given any further endorsement from wikipedia. It looks as though someone or more than one person has had a vendetta against her or it wouldn't be so prevalent on the Internet. I just am glad for the opportunity to express the fact that I disagree wholeheartedly with it or any link to it being posted on this wikipedia site, but I don't want to waste any more time on this. This is a pathetic waste of time. Bcsurvivor 16:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hurrah! And no blood spilt. Done. AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I hope I never have to communicate with you again, AnonEMouse. I might just quit wikipedia altogether if I do.  18:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you feel that way; I guess more blood was spilt than I thought, then. Good luck to you, and hope you never have to quit. AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the inclusion of the mugshot. On the surface, it looks like a cheap shot at a celebrity, a pernicious usage of the freedom of information; it stresses, as AnonEMouse pointed out, the effects of drugs on a person, and it just so happens this one is also a famous celebrity. If one is willing to extrapolate further, this shows the effects of one's choices. One may argue that such is not the point of the article on Yasmine Bleeth, but that would be grossly under-utilizing the potential of hypertexting and weakening the interconnectivity of ideas that is wikipedia, unprecedented by conventional encyclopedia.

The emotional outburst at the beginning of this section of the discussion is crude, deserving censure, as well as it is illogical, deserving a quizzed look: Bleeth's mother passed away when she was 20; her drug problems surfaced when she was 31~32; how is this 'temporarily'? The argument that there is not too much emphasis on this 'unfortunate' episode of her life is misleading: wikipedia is not in print, and so is never set in its content; feel free to add to parts of this article where it deserves more highlight. The argument that she has done much good in her life and this makes her look like a bad person is misleading: see previous, and also, this is an article on all things Yasmine Bleeth, not an argument on whether she is a good person or if she has done more good than bad as a involuntary role model. The argument that because Halley Berry did not receiving her justice, Bleeth should be treated just the same is misleading: it is a issue of preferential treatment rather than equal - preferential - treatment. The argument that the text provided all necessary coverage of that chapter, and the picture adds nothing has been mostly addressed; this picture has a lot of merit, although non-flattering for Bleeth, as a testimony for a important fact oft-missed: behind the industry that churns out idols and defines sex appeal, below the make-up and fancy facades, people are just people (Cymbol 08:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC))

2007 continuation
Here's my problem with the mug shot as the primary photo for this entry - it doesn't really serve the purpose of Wikipedia very well. Think of it from the standpoint of someone who doesn't know who Yasmine Bleeth is. He's doing a Wiki search to find out. Who is Yasmine Bleeth? Is she a well-known drug addict? No, that's not why she's notable. For better or worse, Yasmine Bleeth is famous for being a Baywatch babe. Ideally the most appropriate photo for the Wiki page on this subject would be a still shot from Baywatch. Second to that, some other professional still shot of Yasmine Bleeth. But to have the photo on the Yasmine Bleeth Wiki page be the least flattering photo ever taken of her... that's the exact opposite of what Wikipedia is all about. Is there really no other photo of her available? There's a photo with her in it on the Baywatch page - why can't that be the photo at the top of the entry on Bleeth? Then the mug shot could be used farther down in the article (under the Drug section). Yes, the mugshot may be the most common photo of Bleeth on the internet, but as a case for inclusion, I think that's a bad road to go down. The most common photo of John F Kennedy on the internet is from the Zapruder film, but that wouldn't be appropriate as the primary photo on the Kennedy Wiki entry. And the same for Emmett Till - no one would want Google Image's first photo of Till to be the primary photo of him on the Emmett Till Wikipedia entry. Bourne 23:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Possibly surprisingly enough, I agree. We do need a more typical free photo of Bleeth to be our lead photo. We just don't have one. It's clear that it is possible to take an amateur picture of her, here's one: http://www.flickr.com/photos/whosthatwithjoy/295024727/ (not free) . Tell you what. http://www.unproductions.com/biglook.htm claims it manages her. I'll send them an email and ask for a free photo per Example requests for permission. Can't hurt. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Email to biglook@unproductions.com bounced, not a valid address. Clicking around on that site gives several dead links, which is suspicious. http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=741555 claims Bleeth is managed by PMK Public Relations, but I can't find an email for them. I'll ask the Flickr person if she will make her image free. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I emailed her agency last week, but so far I haven't heard anything. If they don't get back to me, then it's gonna be hard for me to feel too bad about this anymore. Bourne 01:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I came across this article yesterday from some fairly random linking and removed the mug shot image as non-representational of the subject, assuming it was there in error. I see from the debate here that it was intentionally inserted originally, so I'll apologize for being a bit overly-bold and won't remove it again without discussion but that said - Bourne's argument above more or less states the reasons I removed it as non-representational. As an image in a subsection dealing with the events surrounding that mug shot, I would say go to it, but as the primary image in the over-view infobox, this image is misleading. In other words a single (extreme) event in this individual's life is being portrayed in a box intended as an introduction to that ENTIRE individual's life.

I understand the issues with there being no other image to use at this time, but I'd argue that the mug shot image needs to be moved to it's respective subsection as a blank space would be less misleading to a first time reader than this image. -Markeer 04:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Concur
Maybe the bad pic should be in a separate section on her drug use, but at least a nominal picture of her looking reasonable should be the 1st one.

Mwocdss 19:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Free image other than the mugshot!
Joy Cantilo, owner of the Flickr image, got back to me and changed the license to something we can accept. Hurrah! Waiting a few months helped. :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

2009 Mugshot discussion continued
Just wondering why we still have this mugshot which doesn't contribute anything to the article (how can such a picture contribute anything that hasn't already been done through the article??? All it does is make Wikipedia look like a cheap rainbow press). Oh, since someone up on this page brought up several other celebrities' wiki pages as "evidence" for having mugshots included... I checked those listed here and some others but didn't find any

Mugshots may be alright in articles about (people who are nothing but/ or only listed in wikipedia as) criminals, since in most cases these would be the most recent or maybe even only picture. But they haven't got any reason for being included in any other wiki article for 99% of the time. So celebrity XY does drugs. Should it be included in the article? Yes, but only as briefly as necessary (this is not a biography or some soapy television programme). But what purpuse does the picture serve? None, except to satisfy some sick/ stupid (imho) voyeuristic tendencies. Next we'll have the crotch pictures in the articles...

And even if you have a celebrity who becomes a criminal. Is there a special reason why the article should include the mugshot and not any other picture of him/her? Relevancy or any other pseudo- argument doesn't really cut it, because then you'd have to include a picture for any "relevant" event - each movie for an actor, each concert for a musician etc. Reason? Well, because you usually say something like "...Halle Berry, the actress that was involved in the hit and run..." and not "Halle Berry, the hit and run driver who also is an actress..." -85.176.237.179 (talk) 01:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with the anon above, and have removed the mugshot. Quite frankly, it doesn't add anything to this article, and it makes us (i.e. Wikipedia) look bad. We should not draw excessive attention to a person's arrest or legal problems; prominently featuring a mugshot as a picture is a bad idea unless they are primarily notable as a criminal. This is a WP:BLP issue: let's not forget we're dealing with someone's life here. Articles on other celebrities who have been arrested do not always include mugshots (e.g., Mel Gibson doesn't); we should not do so here either. Robofish (talk) 18:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)