Talk:Vanessa Hudgens

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is not a forum for general discussion of Vanessa Hudgens. Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.

Please do not add fan site links to Vanessa Hudgens! Wikipedia is not a link repository, and any such links will be deleted.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

Archives

Archive 1

Contents 1 About the nude photos 2 More common name 3 Finally! A source for "Identified" 4 Photo Scandal 5 Come back to me 6 Official 'Identified' Track Listing

[edit] About the nude photos

How exactly did it get into the internet? I never understand how famous people's dirty pictures and videos get online and an Average Joe could have kiddie porn pics and go on unseen. It's like stuff like that is purposely leaked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megagents (talk • contribs) 20:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

So we have all of these strongly worded warnings commented into the article: "Inserting the nude photos of Ms. Hudgens into this article, or linking to a page with these photos, may be a violation of Wikipedia policy. PLEASE DO NOT LINK TO THESE PHOTOS, OR YOU MAY BE BLOCKED FROM EDITING." and boxed at the top of this page: "Do not post or link to the picture! It will be reverted on sight and has absolutely no encyclopedic use! If you post a link, you will be warned. Upload it to Wikipedia, you are risking a definite block."

Both of these need some sort of reference to specific policies and/or decisions (backed by some kind of authority). Otherwise, it's just "whoever" assuming some mantle of authority and stating something that may or may not be true as an absolute fact. It seems to me we should cite a reliable source for this. But I'm like that.

Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Dude, dont even take those banners seriously. the code is written on the page, its just some fan trying to protect her clean image♠♦Д narchistPig♥♣ (talk) 05:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Err, why isn't the image of encyclopedic use? It is notable.It happened. It is mentioned in the article. She took the pictures. They have beenin the news. What's the problem? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

An image like that isn't encyclopedic, we would be pressed to have a fair use rationale for that, and there could be possible legal circumstances. Simply because something happened does not justify its insertion into the article. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 23:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you missed my question: how is it not encyclopedic? Let's change the item of inclusion, say, an image of Heidi Klum or some other actress doing dope off a coffee table, and the image is in the news and on the internet. The actress discusses the matter and folk talk about the subject matter presented by the image. We include that image because it is notable, verifiable and reliable. Wikipedia is not censored. That Hudgens took the pictures (on purpose, mind you, so the inclusion presents no legal liability to Wikipedia whatsoever) of herself is a fact. That they were released on the internet is a fact. That they made national headlines and were news stories is notable fact. Because it is notable, it is includable. Since when is nudity - albeit inadvisable nudity - reason for non-inclusion? Please feel free to cite policy that covers the inclusion of nudity where it's value is of notable quality. I scoured BLP, and found nothing that precludes its inclusion. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Then would you upload the image and place it in the article? Simply because something is notable does not mean an image must accompany it. As I said, there are also fair use problems. Besides, BLP reminds us that we aren't a tabloid and that we should respect basic human dignity. I'm not a fan of Vanessa Hudgens. I don't even know much about her; I just took it upon myself to watchlist this page because of the massive amounts of vandalism. If I may change the item of inclusion to, say, Paris Hilton's sex tape, it is notable, verifiable, and reliable. Why don't we have a screenshot then? Wikipedia isn't censored, but this doesn't mean every time someone leaks a photo of a celebrity doing scandalous things we upload and display it. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 00:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Referring to the image is no problem. If you could find a site to link to that had permission to post the picture from the copyright holder, you could link that that. To post the image itself here would be dicey, not because of the nudity, but because of the fair use policy. Hudgens certainly hasn't released the image under a GFDL license, so we would have to claim that the lack of the image was a substantial detriment to a reader's understanding of the topic. Now, exactly what understanding do you think the absence is detracting from? That is as close to the "non-encyclopedic" argument as I will come: an illustration is supposed to enhance understanding, and I don't see how this one will. For free images, it's editorial judgment, and I don't get too excited one way or the other. This one isn't free, so presumption is that the image cannot be included unless there is a compelling reason to do so.Kww (talk) 01:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I was playing a bit of Devils Advocate about the image. I think there are two problems with the image, and neither of them were presented here. The argument about basic human dignity isn't really onpoint here; if you don't want naked pics of yourself out there, don't be an actor and take naked pics. Pretty much common sense. We aren't to be held to account if someone is stupid enough to metaphorically say 'y'know what? Screw my career, let's roll tape!' The pictures weren't taken under duress or without her knowledge; we don't save that loudmouth conservative talk personality when he gets caught popping pills or an actor when he gets outed for tapping his kids' nanny. Advocating a picture of someone taken out of context (like the lack of proper undergarments noticed whence exiting from a car) is a denial of human dignity. Advocating the inclusion of something someone did while Under the Influence of Stupid relieves of caring about their human dignity. It would be non-neutral to ignore it.
The reason why we shouldn't include it is that the images were likely taken by her while she was under 18. In some jurisdictions, that's child porn, and a bozo no-no. As well, including this image would act as a catalyst, a slippery slope for the allowance of trivial non-pertinent pictures using the same advocacy of Operating While Under the Influence of Stupid (or UIS, as in 'U is a dumb-ass', as I like to refer to it). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not child porn in Florida, USA. Which is the law we conform to. Naked by itself is not porn by US Supreme Court ruling and is therefore also not child porn. The strong and sufficient argument is justification of the fair use exemption to the use of copyrighted images as outlined by KWW above. The fact that the picture was taken is well referenced. We don't need the picture for proof and there is nothing that that picture can give us that is not completely covered by a textual description. Thus fair use exemption fails and we can't use it. --NrDg 03:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Might I trouble you to cite the caselaw you noted? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

See Massachusetts v. Oakes and some discussion at Salon. Basically the pictures must have lascivious display of genitals or pubic area and nudity is not even required to meet that test. The Hudgens picture displayed the pubic area but not in a lascivious manner. Of course the lascivious part could be debated but I did see the pictures and didn't see it. --NrDg 19:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

As stated above, Human dignity. We are not a tabloid source, if you want to see the pictures then you can find them. --Kanonkas :  Take Contact  19:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not see why the fact that she did it as a mistake justifies its inclusion in the article. We aren't here to hammer in people's mistakes. We're wandering into the area of personal interpretation, but making a mistake does not mean that you don't deserve human dignity. Additionally, we aren't ignoring the fact that she did take nude photographs of herself; we've covered and cited it. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 23:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant we should cover. But what I meant we shouldn't cover was the pictures --Kanonkas :  Take Contact  05:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we make a separate page to describe (or show pictures) of the photo scandal. that way everyone's happy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wtroo (talk • contribs) 13:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More common name

I noticed that the template for Vanessa was moved to Template:Vanessa Hudgens saying that she goes by "Vanessa Hudgens" (see diff), plus, there are songs here don't have "Anne" in the title when saying it's a song by her, such as "Let's Dance (Vanessa Hudgens song)" and "Come Back to Me (Vanessa Hudgens song)". Also, I've heard her credited more often as "Vanessa Hudgens" than "Vanessa Anne Hudgens". There isn't consistency at the moment, which should be fixed: would it make sense to move this to "Vanessa Hudgens", or move the other pages to include "Anne" in the title? Thoughts? Acalamari 20:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I slightly support moving the article to Vanessa Hudgens. Please note, though, that I do not consider myself particularly informed on this topic. I'm basing my opinion on that her official site refers to her as Vanessa Hudgens rather than Vanessa Anne Hudgens. --Yamla (talk) 23:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing: I've heard her credited more as "Vanessa Hudgens" than "Vanessa Anne Hudgens", and on some pages (including this one) I've even had to sort out copy-and-paste moves. I'd support moving to Vanessa Hudgens if consensus develops towards that title. Acalamari 23:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah this should be moved to Vanessa Hudgens per WP:NCP. Her official site and nearly all the cited sources refer to her without the Anne. Spellcast (talk) 23:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for moving it. Acalamari 21:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Finally! A source for "Identified"

I would usually get cranky about using a youtube video as a source, but I will accept it as a faithful transcript of the Radio Disney interview. Please, people, it saves so much time and trouble if you identify a source first, and then add the information. Doing it backwards causes a lot of trouble.Kww (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The youtube audio is still a copyright violation and linking to it is contributory infringement. I didn't see any permission from Disney Radio on YouTube that stated YouTube had permission to host it. This puts us in a quandary. The information is factually correct but we can't use the reference that proves it. The actual reference is the Disney Radio broadcast. The citation does not need a url but must have a way to verify. A real transcript on a trusted source would be best. I suppose since there is no other source we could assert a claim for fair use exemption until something better comes along. Any suggestions? --NrDg 20:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to live with the direct reference being to the broadcast. The Youtube stuff can be pointed to as a verification in the event of a challenge, if it's challenged before a reliable trancript or other source appears.Kww (talk) 23:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not happy about this but changed cite to "Vanessa Hudgens, Interview, Radio Disney, 2008-04-11." in article until we can get a better reference. We can probably use that in the Identified article as well. --NrDg 23:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I think all of our other choices were worse. A lot of people think that I enjoy whacking editors for unsourced stuff, but I really don't. It gets especially unpleasant when all that's being enforced is a technicality, and I know that they are putting accurate information in. Looks to me like Disney releases these interviews as podcasts. Hopefully, that will be available in a few days.

I forget who said it, but I live by these words: The test of decision making is the ability to make a bad decision. It's easy to make a good decision ... if one of your choices actually has merit, any idiot can choose it. It's when every one of your choices is wrong that it takes any skill or intelligence. Kww (talk) 23:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Photo Scandal

I added to thatsection "...which was the cause for rumors that she'd be dropped from the cast of High School Musical 3: Senior Year." The thing is, it was reverted, but then someone else must have added it again, and there edit WASN'T reverted. Can I ask... why? ♥Tory~♥Amulet♥Heart♥ 17:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing it out; I've reverted it. The source cited does not mention anything about such rumours, so it did not belong there. Generally, rumours shouldn't be added to Wikipedia articles unless they're very well and reliably sourced. Even then, they're not usually encyclopaedic. --Ebyabe (talk) 23:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay thank you. I was just wondering because if when I said it it was reverted I didn't understand what difference it would make if someone else said it. (Note: I'm not new to wikipedia anymore but still getting the hang of things) ♥Tory~♥Amulet♥Heart♥ 16:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Come back to me

The song come back to me played backwards has lyrics related to sex...you may want to put that in the song thingy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Npurplegirl (talk • contribs) 01:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• What's the source for the alleged lyrics, so we can evaluate its reliability and whether to include their analysis in the article? —C.Fred (talk) 16:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Official 'Identified' Track Listing

Track Listing
1. Last Night
2. Identified
3. First Bad Habit
4. Hook It Up
5. Don't Ask Why
6. Sneakernight
7. Amazed
8. Don't Leave
9. Paper Cut
10. Party On The Moon
11. Did It Ever Cross Your Mind
12. Gone With The Wind