Talk:Jenna Jameson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Peer review Jenna Jameson has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
More information about this article...
 A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed by the Biography WikiProject.
This article is part of WikiProject Porn stars, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to porn stars 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.
Archive

Archives
1


Contents

[edit] Josie Maran rumor removed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Josie_Maran

the rumor was started here by someone misquoting the Stern show: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Josie_Maran&diff=16720720&oldid=15413260 "An avowed bisexual, Josie revealed on the Howard Stern show that despite having a long-time boyfriend she also enjoys sex with women, including adult movie actress Jenna Jameson."

Josie Maran and David Blained talked about her liking porn, and hooking up with other model/actresses on Howard Stern's show, but Jenna's name was never mentioned. There's never been a quote of Josie mentioning Jenna.

Video from the Stern show here: http://josiemaran-world.com/josie-maran.com/downloads/motion/JMhs4.wmv the rest of the show can be found here: http://josiemaran-world.com/josie-maran.com/motion.htm

the site which was cited by the Jenna Jameson wiki, http://www.allamericanspeakers.com/newspeakerbio/2457/index.php , just copy and pasted from the 21 September 2005 revision of the Josie Maran wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Josie_Maran&oldid=23667115, which contains the above error. Shiyan 20:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)shiyan

[edit] Jay Grdina husband or ex-husband?

just a little discrepancy, but i didnt change it cos i have no idea what the truth is. In the 'Personal Life' section it is implicit in the wording that jenna and jay are still 'happily married' at their 2million dollar ranch, but in the trivia section Jay is described as jenna's ex-husband, can someone who knows better than me fix this.

End of the section specifies that they separated in August 2006. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] missing something

uhm, she was sexually abused in montana (or wyoming? or something) at a young age and says thats one of the reasons she got into porn. she also said if she had kids she would quit porn.

this article is, basically, super-light, proving yet again that wikipedia is controlled by corporations and their PR flacks, not honesty and certainly not 'the people' who are more than likely to get banned for 'vandalism' merely for writing the truth.

the source for this information is a @#$@#$ documentary where she says it in her own @#$@#$ words. so dont give me this verifiable source bullshit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.185.250.195 (talk • contribs) 21:44, July 28, 2006 (UTC-6)

Haha...if you can "source" it and verify that source, then by all means add the information! not that hard...

[edit] What do we need to do to make this a Featured Article?

Per the question above, I would very much like people's input as to what we can do to get this article to Featured Article status (or damn well close to it). So if you have any suggestions, please feel free to fire away. Thank you. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 21:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Just an update: I'm starting a rewrite of the article on my username space. I will post a link when it is ready. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 00:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Feature Article checklist

I would like to get a straw poll going to see if people believe that this article is achieving the following criteria laid out at Wikipedia:What is a featured article? Therefore, after each question, please vote yes or no with supporting reasons as to why you've voted yes or no.

  1. Is the article well written? (See: Wikipedia:Article development.)
    • No. While the article is decently written, the flow of the article needs a lot of work. The more recent additions, spanning from earlier this year to now, were added to the article without regard to how the entire article would be affected. (Imagine a stone garden, where each rock thrown into it ripples out and affects the other stones in the garden. It's the same effect that I see here.) Also, there seems to be a slight POV problem, which starts off from the lead paragraph that should be corrected immediately. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 22:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Reviewers' call! I've rewritten, reorganized, and cited until citations are coming out of my ears. Calling for a peer review, let's see what other people think. AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Is the article comprehensive?
    • Yes. The artice is reasonably comprehensive, covering her early life to present events. This is no doubt thanks to her autobiography, which most porn stars do not have. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 22:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Is the article factually accurate with proper citations to verifiable and reliable sources?
  4. Does the article have a neutral, encyclopedic tone?
    • Yes. For the most part, however there's a slight issue of tone which slams into the reader's face in the lead paragraph, particularly "she is one of the most famous female porn stars in the world". While Jenna Jameson is a popular star, some of the things said here seem to be near glowing. Compared to Mariah Carey (a Featured Article), it is said no where that she is "one of the most famous female singers in the world". The closest claim that we could probably latch upon that is this grandiose is "according to the Billboard magazine she [Carey] was the most successful artist of the 1990s in the United States". However, we have a notable magazine saying thus, and the wording in this is quite neutral. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 22:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
    • No. This article borders on a fluff-peice. Seeing as how I know many of the fine folks at Club Jenna, you can rest easy now that they personally have edited this page may times or have plans to in the near future. The more you know! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Angry Black Man (talk • contribs) 14:32, September 25, 2006.
    • Yes. The "most famous" and "Queen" language is extravagant, but tighly cited - Forbes, Rolling Stone, and CNN. AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Does the article have a concise lead section that summarizes the entire topic?
    • No. It points out that she is a pornographic actress. Doesn't give us any other specifics other than that and a vague number of being "in over 100 porn related videos" in her career. It says nothing about her other accomplishments, such as building her own business a la Danni Ashe. That's about it. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 22:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes. I added specifics on the multimillion dollar business and bestselling autobiography to the lead section, and cited "world's most famous". AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  6. Does the article have a proper system of sections/headings and a substantial, but not overwheming, table of contents?
    • Yes. There is a logical progression to the article. It would have to be tweaked, depending on how the article is revised, but we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 22:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  7. Does the article have images where appropriate with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status?
    • Yes to the captions. No to the pictures. We could stand to get a higher quality picture of her "cameo" appearance in Family Guy, since it is a screengrab from a FOX airing. The fair use image of her at the AVN Awards has no fair use rationale and probably will be removed, since we have a Creative Commons image of her in the infobox. The box cover depicted in the filmography section is also unnecessary, as we are not giving commentary to the film itself. To compare to another featured article on actress Uma Thurman, one will not see a boxcover to Kill Bill or Pulp Fiction, given that there is no reason for the box cover for The New Devil in Miss Jones. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 22:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes and Yes now. I made a better screenshot of the Family Guy appearance, better quality, and one showing that it was a speaking role, and I removed the The New Devil in Miss Jones, which was "just another role", and replaced it with "Briana Loves Jenna", which is the one Jameson cites on her bio, Forbes reports on, and which was the first Club Jenna film, the first film she acted in with Grdina, and the best selling and best renting title of its year -- much better fair use justification, I think. AnonEMouse (squeak) 05:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  8. Is the article tightly focused on the subject without going into unnecessary, unencyclopedic detail?
    • No. While focus is definitely present, the main thing holding it back is the "trivia" section. It needs to be removed to tighten the article, and the "trivia" itself either needs to be written into the prose, or removed entirely, as some of it is non-encyclopedic. For example: "She [Jenna Jameson] is a Roman Catholic, and despite the flak she gets, she says the only person that can judge her is God" sounds quite fanboyish and strikes me as something that needs to be eviscerated with zeal. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 22:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes. Finally got rid of the trivia section, was able to reference most things and put them into more relevant places. AnonEMouse (squeak) 07:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JJ info

Joe, re. Jenna's info. You can go direct to her people, to get info and source data. Why not do it the easy way, vs. the unknown if "true or false" information (be it PR, polishing or outright gossip -- unknown if "valid"), when trolling through the many many sites -- You still never know what is true or false, just because it is "published," or "on a site."

Jenna is unique in the industry. Even if she provides info. w/ a spin, I'm sure it is easily "second sourced" by a referenced site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.175.39.202 (talk • contribs).

Unfortunately, we're not here to write the truth, merely what is verifiable. That's not necessarily the same thing. If we know something to be true, but don't have a verifiable source that says so, we can't write it. So we do need to find sources first, for us they're literally more important than the truth. Fortunately for this article, she did write a published autobiography, which should help a lot. Everything she says there may or may not be true, but is verifiable. AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Date of Birth

I confess to having only a passing knowledge of who Jenna Jameson is, but I was channel surfing through the E! True Hollywood Story tonight and found the documentary, already in progress, which cites were birth year as 1964, including all the subsequent years moved back 10 years ("as a 16-year-old in 1990") from what's shown in this article. The show had interviews with her and her brother confirming these dates, And even a photo of her mother's gravestone dated 1966. I've changed the dates in this article accordingly and added the reference. It's also possible that I missed the beginning of the documentary that mentioned why her age is reported as ten years younger. Crunch 00:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The online pages said 1974 back when I cited them. They seem to be down now, but I linked to the Internet Archive copies that you can check. We'll need stronger sources to move it back 10 years. AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anal scene

Trivia includes "Has never done an anal scene on camera" by 71.233.47.227, who has no other Wikipedia edits. I reverted the edit and then had second thoughts. I found it on recent changes and I do not know enough about the subject to say whether this is vandalism or not. KeepItClean 23:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I found this source -- http://www.bridgemagazine.org/online/features/archive/000113.php -- which says she never did it as of 2001, but I also found this chat log, where she says that she was planning to do anal on film as of 2000 -- http://www.adultdvdtalk.com/chat/jenna_jameson.asp? So it's debatable. AnonEMouse (squeak) 03:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I weaseled out of the issue by writing that she promised herself never to do so, but avoided writing whether she kept that promise or not. :-P. AnonEMouse (squeak) 08:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incest Porn Film

In the biography section it states that Jenna Jameson performed in a Incest Porn movie with her father and brother, which obviously means she had sex with her own father and brother on screen!! This is obviously completely false and is an act of vandalism. I tried to edit this out and was unable to, as for some reason the incest text appears on the main page but is completely missing from the edit page!! How is this possible? Try it yourself, read the article and you will see the Incest sentence, go to "Edit Page" and the sentence is not there! Someone who knows the reason for this needs to rectify it asap.

The above was written by Cole1982

The reason that you can't find it when you try to edit the article is because between the time that you're computer loaded the article and when you tried to edit the article, I already took it out. If you load the article again and hit refresh, you'll see that it's not there anymore. Check the article history and you'll see I took it out. And please sign your posts with four tildès like so: ~~~~. Thanks, Dismas|(talk) 13:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Important Pornographic Work

I never knew there was such a thing. Isn't this some sort of oxymoron? And don't go trying to say porn is art either.

Porn is art. --Eniac turing 12:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Art is porn. Obbop68.13.191.153 02:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the term "important" is POV, and another word should probably be used in its place. Perhaps "pornographic career highlights" or something similar would be best? -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO? 03:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Porn must be important, how else would you explain the multi-billion dollar industry? And, morals and tastes aside, you can't deny the importance of a film like Deep Throat, whose very existence is a pillar of the free speech movement. RobbieNomi 05:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/e/n/Talk%7EJenna_Jameson_e675.html"