Talk:Linda Lovelace

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
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.

Contents

[edit] Page one

As this Wikipedia article was the only one with April 23 as date of death, and all other resources I could find said April 22, I assumed a mistake was made and changed the info. -- Eric

Removed non-English version that looks like an copy and paste of a news entry.

I moved the Portuguese text to the appropriate Wiki. I think the preferred name of this article should be the name that people know and expect--which is "Lovelace". We're not here to eulogize, but to report. The title of an article should be whatever is most likely to be linked ad-hoc from other articles, and I don't think "Boreman" is going to come up in other texts. -- Lee Daniel Crocker

What is with all the links in this article? I can see some of them, but "sport-utility vehicle"? It looks like someone is confusing the convention here with perhaps that of another online database. And "April 23"?

By the way, why would not a queen be listed as Queen [name] [Roman numeral]?

Our convention, created after much discussion, is "[Name] [numeral] of [country]", which is about as concise as it's possible to be while still distinguishing adequately among the 40 or so Alberts and Phillips of various European countries. "King" or "Queen" is unnecessary, but for other nobility you do need the title, as "[Name] [numeral], [title] of [place]". We also have a suggested policy of making only those links that are relevant. I rather favor that policy, but many don't. I don't think it's critical enough to be worth actuall removing links unless I happen to be already editing an article for other reasons. --LDC

'The "Linda Lovelace vs. Linda Boreman" naming discussion was moved to wikipedia talk:naming conventions.' Summary: Some felt that out of deference to the wishes of Linda Boreman and her family (amoung other things) the article should be moved to Linda Boreman. Others strongly opposed this per wikipedia:naming conventions that state that articles should be named for what the largest number of English speakers would either know or easily recognize. "Linda Lovelace", a screen name, is by far the most widely known and recognized -- thus the article is where it is.

  • Personally, I think that throughout the article itself Boreman, aside from the first mention of the name, should be replaced by Lovelace. The article on John Wayne doesn't refer to him as Marion Morrison, the article on Roy Rogers doesn't refer to him as Leonard Sly. Why should this article be any different? Hayford Peirce 22:18, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • John Wayne liked is made up name. Linda Boreman did not. Keep it as it is. --mav 05:55, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • I don't find that a convincing argument. Again, as someone above stated, we're not here to eulogize, but report.--24.21.255.203 07:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Linda's legacy

It certainly seems that Linda was a victim of considerable physical and sexual abuse, which is indeed beyond tragic. The adult film industry was rife with these practices during the 1970's and has encouraged same throughout America's less-enlightened, less educated areas since then. Still, I can only hope that she took some comfort before passing in two facts: One, Deep Throat will probably always be the greatest adult film of all-time, and a real piece of cinematic history. And two, her abilty to perform fellatio will be a celebrated talent for many years to come. Rest In Peace, Linda.

  • Anyone who, 32 years after the debut of Deep Throat, still calls it the greatest adult film of all time has clearly never seen another porn movie. Aside from being the most famous porn movie of all time, it is probably the one thousandth best, if that. And certainly her ability to perform deep throat introduced a new pleasure to the world -- but it has been commonplace in many movies since then. But she will be remembered for that -- just the way Babe Ruth is still remembered today: as a great pioneer in his field. Hayford Peirce 22:18, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Actually, I read Joe Bob Briggs' book on "shocking movies" today, which included, in the chapter on Deep Throat, a quote from Harry Reems saying that it's not actually that pleasurable an experience. It's impressive to watch, but it doesn't feel particularly wonderful, compared to normal fellatio. DS 04:20, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • I remember reading the same thing several years ago. I haven't received enough deep throating to qualify as an expert critic and appraiser of it, but I'd say off-hand from my fairly limited experience that Harry is correct: it's an OK sensation but nothing that I'd miss if it were never experienced again. On the other hand, a couple of gay friends of mine tell me that they love receiving it. I think that maybe it depends on the skill of the person doing it -- if it can be done in a smooth, continuous motion, back and forth as in regular fellatio, it's probably more enjoyable than when the deep throater has to actively work to cram things in, so to speak, which is probably the case with most people doing it. In any case, it is perhaps an experiment that should be more closely studied under clinically controlled circumstances.... Volunteers, anybody? Hayford Peirce 17:33, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] External verification

A lot of this article has just been changed rather abruptly. May I make the suggestion that, since Linda Boreman showed a particular propensity to say one thing at one time and something completely contradictory at a later time, anything for which we have only Boreman's word should be marked as such? -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:45, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] David Winters

There's some question about whether Marchiano was Boreman's second husband, or her third. The second, if it wasn't Marchiano, was Eric Winters. Can anyone find out anything about whether they were actually legally married? -- Antaeus Feldspar 8 July 2005 00:21 (UTC)

Actually, I Googled it... It was David Winters. Although there's no mention of them actually getting married, but she was with him prior to Marchiano. See: [1] and [2]. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 8 July 2005 00:49 (UTC)
If you look at Joe Bob Briggs's obituary for Linda (one of those quoted at that second URL) he refers to her split with Marchiano as the breakup of her third marriage. -- Antaeus Feldspar 9 July 2005 16:07 (UTC)
Ack. Guess I didn't read far enough. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 01:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I am changing this to the proper name

I have been in contact with Catharine MacKinnon about her page, and about the page on the late Andrea Dworkin. In particular, MacKinnon refers to Linda Boreman as Linda Boreman. I renamed the link in the text since I only use direct links. For me, that settles it. I am renaming the page to Ms. Boreman's proper name. I would expect the same level of respect from her if she were still alive and if our roles were reversed. Amorrow 20:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. Why are Catharine MacKinnon's opinions the deciding factor? Every famous movie actor (porn or not) that I have looked up (Cary Grant, Kirk Douglas, Aurora Snow, Jenna Haze, Traci Lords has their stage name (the name that they were famous for) as the page name. Why should this page be any different? Does any one else have an opinion? Michael L. Kaufman 20:29, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Linda Lovelace → Linda Boreman – Please use the correct, legal name for the late Ms. Boreman. I have been in contact with Catharine MacKinnon, and that is how she puts it in her suggested text for her own (MacKinnon's) page. I have implemented MacKinnon's page as per her suggestsion as I find no NPOV issues. Ms. Boreman consistently indicated that she was coerced into the movie and, therefor, the Lovelace name. If it were a matter of, for instance, race, rather than gender, there would be no question. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amorrow (talk • contribs) 21:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
  • Oppose. Philip Baird Shearer 02:28, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions. Linda Lovelace is commonly known, Linda Boreman is not. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 03:18, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - she became a public figure under Linda Lovelace and, even though she addressed Congress and spoke out, she spoke out about Linda Lovelace. No one has any idea who Boreman is, which is why one chooses a screen name in the first place when a person is a porn actress.--Noitall 04:57, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose (or rather, since the move has already been made, Support moving back to Linda Lovelace). WP naming conventions are for people to be listed under their best known name. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 12:17, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree with Angr since the vote is misleading as it is now. --Noitall 13:41, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose As I said before, every famous movie actor (porn or not) that I have looked up (Cary Grant, Kirk Douglas, Aurora Snow, Jenna Haze, Traci Lords has their stage name (the name that they were famous for) as the page name. Michael L. Kaufman 21:04, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose the moving of the name; strongly criticize the move without discussion. Whether the editors of Wikipedia like it or not, whether Catharine MacKinnon likes it or not, "Linda Lovelace" will always be known to more people than Linda Susan Boreman and as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions this means the article should be at Linda Lovelace. I cannot imagine a greater irrelevancy to the issue than whether or not MacKinnon is a "class act". -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:27, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, but you already know that. I just did not want it to be unanimous. BTW: I never claimed that I was a class act. Amorrow 19:50, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions. sorry but this is a clear case. Linda Lovelace is far better known than Linda Boreman. Howver the article can and should say that she preferred to be known by her legal name. DES (talk) 20:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments
This issue has already been discussed: to death, it seems. As per Wikipedia:Naming Conventions, we go with the common name of the person in question. Whether MacKinnon likes ir or not, Linda Boreman is commonly known as Linda Lovelace. Also, the fact of the matter is -- and by your own admission! -- you are conducting original research (which contravenes the no original research guidlines of Wikipedia). Please desist. Thank you. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 21:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Most common name or not, I just want to make it clear, that when you move a page, always use the move button so that you'll save the edit history. It is very important to keep the edit history.
EliasAlucard|Talk 23:31, 28 Jul, 2005 (UTC)
She reputiated the name over a long period of time. If this was about, for instance, race, rather than gender, there would be no question, ideas about common name or otherwise. I do not agree with everything MacKinnon says, but at least she dealt with Boreman. If anyone still alive knows who Boreman was, and is still willing to talk about it, MacKinnon does. I am not doing research. I am going to the primary sources. If MacKinnon has NPOV issues, they are not apparent in my communications with her.
When has a person changed their name due to issies of race, and wikipedia used the less well known name to follow the person's preference? Is there even one example?

Here is an example: Tom Davis. U.S. Politician. Never, ever, ever does he call himself Thomas Davis. It's because "Tom" is friendlier-sounding. Mountains of campaign literature, news articles, blah blah blah. "Tom Davis" in NNDB. Does he get Tom Davis at Wikipedia? No. Why not? Because it is lower-quality.

On the other hand, we have Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb as the names of their articles. If you type in George Herman Ruth or Tyrus Raymond Cobb you're redirected to the first two articles. Are "Babe" and "Ty" higher quality names than "Linda Lovelace"? I think not. And no matter how much you insist that Napoleon's real name was Napoleone Buonaparte, I think you'll find that the Wiki article about him is entitled Napoleon Bonaparte. Hayford Peirce 00:37, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Ty and Babe never repudiated the names. I wikified the "Buonaparte" name and, yes it already works. Try this: Go to his page, click "What links here" and jack it up to 500. What a mess!!! Still, the current page name "Napolean I of France" is not exactly humilating. Come on folks. Grow up! Some day, the page is gonna be called "Linda Susan Boreman" anyway. It is just a matter of time.

Now folks. Let me explain: I asked MacKinnon for feedback on her own page. In the text she sent back, she included this:

MacKinnon represented Linda Boreman, coerced as Linda "Lovelace" into
the pornography film Deep Throat, from 1980 until Ms. Boreman’s death in 2002.

My point is merely this: she is a class act. You do not have to like her social views, but just try to emulate her level of style. Boreman was a real person. Lovelace was a celluoid caricature. Boreman expressed her wishes and you should conform to them as if you were the executor of her will. Other movie stars will do down in the books by their stage names because they do not WANT to be recorded by their real name. MacKinnon did not mention any of this to me at all. I just very carefully read her text about herself. I then chopped out the business about "coerced" and the movie, because that belongs on the Boreman page only and proceeded.

You want another example? I just wikified the Karadzic name in MacKinnon's page. I then went and changed ALL the links, one by one, from Karadzic to Karadžić with the goddamn circumflex and accent acute. You think that name is "easier" for anyone besides Slavs? Not really. But it really is his goddamn name! It is the goddamn name that will soon be on goddman conviction statements in the Hague. BUT, in the US court decisions convicting him, it is Karadzic. So MacKinnon's page relabels it to that. Go read his current page, which I just updated. Even his wife is asking him, his circumflex, and his accent acute to get into the U.N. slammer where he belongs. Amorrow 11:46, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Boreman was a real person. That is not the true issue. What is the issue here is your disregard for the already established policies of Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't go by one person's wishes alone. Yes, her preference at how she wished to be called should be noted, but you are forcing the issue based on your belief and your wishes. You even disregarded the requested moves vote and moved it anyway. That vote, as of right now, is 3 opposed, with 1 supporting. The only supporting vote, as of this writing, is yours. In my mind, your dismissal of requested moves policies gives contributors enough grounds for filing an RfC against you. Additionally, please refrain from vulgarity (i.e. "goddamn") as per the civility guidelines. Thank you. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 16:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
The proper procedure, of course, based on the clear Wiki guidelines and her wishes, is to move the page back to Linda and put a statement in the article that in later life she repudiated the use of the name Linda Lovelace (although that is the issue she spoke out about and she would never have been invited to speak or would anyone have known about her had she not been at one time Linda Lovelace). --Noitall 13:38, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

(next three paragraphs are Amorrow) So her testimony in 1986 in Congress is not historic enough? Face it: Anyone who thinks that the Lovelace name is "more important" just thinks it is more important that Lovelace take her clothes off just one more time for them. Come on honey, just more time. I am begging you... Take them off.... Amorrow 00:41, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

(I am removing my own diatribe, because it sucked.) I would love to have followed procedure, but in this particular case, I recognized that I would lose. I embrace democracy but, the truth is not as democratic as I would like it to be. This is really about what Wikipedia wants to be. Are we just another www.nndb.com ? I think not. We describe the person because we have better sources, better NPOV, better insight. And I LOVE some of nndb.com/rotten.com's stuff. I mean: From: http://www.rotten.com/library/history/political-scandal/watergate/

So everyone pretty much knew Nixon was a mean, crazy fuck...

I LOVE it. It is so true! But there are NPOV problems, so that line does not end up at Wikipedia. I am glad that both sites exist.

OK, now let us look at how this was handled: Fonzie. Two pages. The character and the actor. Who thinks we should do this for Linda Lovelace? Anyone? All we would have to do is rewrite the redirect page. Any takers? Hardly seems worth it, but that option is still available. Of course, The Fonz never wrote any books and stuff, but I am sure that we could work something out... Amorrow 04:01, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Your last argument does not make much sense. Fonzie was a character, not a stage name like Lovelace. And Winkler was an actor in many movies. A much better comparison is John Wayne. --Noitall 04:21, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
And to your argument about voluntariness and repudiation, which I can not think up a related example, Lovelace had one stage name and I would argue a stage name can only be overcome by a better-known more notable stage name (e.g., Sylvester Stallone later attempted to become known as "Michael Stallone"). --Noitall 04:29, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Uh, I don't remember the Duke or Sly with a penis down their throat. Maybe you can refresh my memory. Amorrow 05:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

That's an interesting point, because you do remember Linda Lovelace with a penis down her throat. That is (like it or not) the most memorable thing about her for general people coming to the Wikipedia (as opposed to family, friends, and MacKinnon). Which is why Linda Lovelace is more appropiate then Linda Boreman. Michael L. Kaufman 13:30, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Amorrow, your comment is extemely objectionable. You shouldn't be on this page if you can't deal with the subject at hand. Your comments are not productive if they are to attack others instead improving the page. And as to the subject of sex, I think it is a safe assumption that the vast majority of women have sex. The difference is, Lovelace did it on film and became famous for it. And, by the way, Stallone did do a porno film as one of his first films (remember, the Italian Stallion?). So grow up and get your facts straight. --Noitall 13:39, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

My responses: And I had the extreme luck (good? bad? whatever...) of finding a picture of your mother with a penis down her throat, put it up on the Internet and made it very, very famous, does that mean I get to write HER page that way??? Get real. Again, I did not say that Sly never made porno. I said that there is no footage of him with a penis down his throat. There is a difference. I AM "dealing with" the subject at hand. I removed my diatribe sake of decorum, but now is comes back. Pah! The diatribe is all true, but it still does not drive the point home (look in the version history if you must). I am working on one that will....

Oh! How could I be so foolish??? I was extemely objectionable. How will I will I ever live this down? I am so ashamed. The day of reckoning is coming for me! I can see it now: The Duke and Sly, each with one hand clenched in a fist of rage, the other with its trembling finger pointing at me, tears welling up in their eyes and them shouintg: "You mean man! You hurt my feelings! I awtta blow your brains out!". Amorrow 19:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Naming again

This article should be called Linda Lovelace for the same reason that the article on Julius Henry Marx is at Groucho Marx: Linda Boreman was best known by her stage name, Linda Lovelace, just in the same way that Julius Henry Marx was best known as Groucho Marx. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions. The article makes it clear that her real name is Boreman, and that for a long time she rejected her stage name completely, However, it's interesting to note that, long after her rejection of the porn industry, she made a re-appearance as "Linda Lovelace" in Leg Show magazine, and in interviews made after that time, continued to refer to "Linda Lovelace" in the third person as if she was an alter ego. -- Karada 13:43, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for putting us out of our misery and moving the page since everyone but Amorrow agreed with the answer and he only objected because he did his own research to base his decision on what someone connected with the family wanted. --13:50, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Thank goodness you've made this move! We've disagreed about other things in the past but I'm 100% with you on this. I'm afraid that Amorrow shows all the symptoms of being an obsessed crank about a single issue and that Linda Lovelace happens to be his particular issue. I have no objection to the previous title (Linda Lovelace Boreman or whatever the hell it was), but even that was a compromoise, and I strongly feel that like Groucho, John Wayne, and a thousand other examples, this article should be called Linda Lovelace, whether Catherine MacKinnon likes it or not. Hayford Peirce 15:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Karada: You are a damn hypocrite... (other crappy and unsuccesful attempts by Amorrow to intimidate deleted)

Amorrow, if anything about this is going to get taken up the line, it will be your hideously uncivil insults to other editors ("if ... any decent woman still alive is willing to talk to you") and your threats to other editors ("The new problem will be about Karada vs. whatever your new name is going to be.") You should be so lucky if what goes up the line is your assumption that you are superior to all other editors and thus it is only your opinion which matters about what the "proper name" of the page should be. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Use the most common form of the name used in English - Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). Karada is 100% right - this article belongs at Linda Lovelace. →Raul654 18:50, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

(more crappy posturing Amorrow)

I understand that mentality. I understand that you are just young, immature boys willing to volunteer in this Wikipedia thing, and that the handle thing is a big status symbol and that you value it. But you cannot figure out that Ms. Boreman cared also. You have a blind spot. Work on it. That was my point, all along.

One reasons I do Wikipedia is because I get to introduce myself to some of the finest men and women in the world, and to ask them to review the information, either about them or the subject of their expertise, and ensure NOT that it is the result of democracy, but that it is correct. Amorrow 04:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

(I have deleted my own verbiage in this section to avoid wasting the reader's time.) Amorrow 18:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Requested change in text

Linda Lovelace → Linda "Lovelace" – Please use quotes on the stage name for the late Ms. Boreman to acknowledge that it was just a stage name. Just the first time in the text of the page. It is how Ms. Boreman's attorney refers to her as. If it were a matter of, for instance, race, rather than gender, there would be no question.

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
  • Support. Amorrow 23:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We don't say "Bob" Hope, why should we say Linda "Lovelace"? Hayford Peirce 00:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Contrary to Amorrow's claim that "there would be no question" if it were a matter of race, a look at Stepin Fetchit shows that Wikipedia's procedure is to locate a person's article under the name by which they are best known, not to make exceptions because someone feels that the image associated with that name is degrading. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose for reasons previously stated. →Raul654 01:50, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The text box already says the name she was born with, and the text can certainly say that she later stopped using the name. And then used it agian. And then stopped again. 02:23, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Stage names don't have quotes in them. Linda Lovelace has not been spelled anywhere else (to my knowledge) as Linda "Lovelace". Also, refer to the other points made by Antaeus Feldspar. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 03:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - nothing more to say than has been said. --Noitall 04:23, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blade Runner

From: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083658/quotes

Batty: That's what it is to be a slave.

I can imagine that some of you particularly liked that film. That's why I did it. Amorrow 06:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Amorrow, I love the move Blade Runner, but it actually makes the opposite point that you are trying to make here. Nice try. Michael L. Kaufman 12:21, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
If Hitler could have watched Blade Runner, he might have burst laughing as the dove flies into the air. In his imagination, he might have put himself into the film as part of the Corporation, watching the android blink out on something like a web camera. In his imagination, he might have made himself a part of the Coporation in some office somewhere, and then, in that office, pushed the button on his stop watch, slapped the shoulder on the engineer next to him, knowing that he had just won the bet about when that silly android would blink out, and exclaim: "Ha! Dat robot followed his ordahs to ze end!". Hitler would be correct. I could laugh along with him. I think even Scott would find the perspective funny and valid. The point is that it is Batty's Destiny to blink out and his Destiny is neihter tragedy, comedy or NPOV. It is all three and not specifically any one of the three It is just his Destiny and he cannot escape it. It is just as silly and contrived as, say, Mozart's Cosi fan Tutti. One life. One inescapable Destiny. They are delicate things and you should treat them with care, even if you are just trying to write biography. Amorrow 16:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


"The use of history as therapy means the corruption of history as history." Arthur M. Schlesinger, Sr. ( Michael L. Kaufman 18:27, August 4, 2005 (UTC) )
I can assure that Prof. Schlesinger derived intense pleasure from the act of creating his tomes and later talking about them and the subject matter with others who had read them. In addition, he was able to distinguish between historical reality and stage characters. Perhaps that part of his job was easier because video recordings of the events were/are (mostly) not available. Amorrow 23:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] OK boys, we are moving out!

Onward to Stepin Fetchit and Shirley Temple! Charge!!! Amorrow 14:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Perfect object lesson for us all to learn from: Charles Alden Black, Shirley Temple Black's husband of 55 years just passed away on Thursday. Her page reads (and I did not write this) "She may have looked favorably on his admission while dating that he had never seen any of her films.". And if you go to some of the links, you will find out that the reason why is because he had some kinda extreme religous upbringing or something.

Some IP address from L.A. added that factoid of Mr. Black's death on Mrs. Black's page on Friday, after I went off on my Shirley Temple "thing". You think I am going to send her flowers, just because she lives nearby? No. I am just going to keep on working on her page to remind her that we still care about who she, as a living person, is and was. It does mean, however, that there will be quite a delay before I ask for some confirmation, maybe from her agent, about her details that are on her Wikipedia page.

BTW: I did not previously apologize for how rude I was about Angela. I now apologize to you all. It was kinda mean of me to do that, but what else can I do when you are treating Linda's memory thusly? She is in a position of leadership, so she is fair game. (I know, I know: I am wrong. NPOV! NPOV!) I am just saying anyway. Amorrow 00:02, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lovelace as warfare

Now, look at that beautiful UPI Obituary conflict. It is everything warfare should be. Incomplete reconnaissance, stumbling upon the enemy. Back-and-forth. Thrusting. Parry. To me, that is a lot more interesting than you-know-what.

This is really about what Wikiepia wants to be. What are these media-star biographies going to be? 2-D images of what you see on the video screen, or 3-D profiles of the real people. It is a _very_ important question. As far as I am concerned, IMDB already gives you the 2-D information pretty well. It is in the "External Links" where the vast amount of additional material is. Add the right links, and you are the jumping off point for that story. You are the capstone that splays out into what the rest of the Internet has to provide. Is this not what Wikipedia wants to be? It is a VERY important question.

The reason why I see these biographies as interesting is because I get to assault these people with no-holds-barred. They surrendered their privacy long ago and I can put my hand right into their pants if I need to; if that is where the story is. I am not paparazzi. I do not want photos. I want story and, specifically, I want to know the effect of the whole person on our society. They are a LOT more complex and interesting than the characters they played. They got fame and they used it. Fame is power to influence, and they used it.

I am not going to read these people's books. I am merely going to list them. Is it cruel of me to go after these details? They are already out on the Internet anyway. I am just arranging the information so that you can see what I see. Is this not what Wikipedia wants to be? Feedback please! Amorrow 00:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Into the mainstream???

Are you pehaps making a joke about a stream of urine or something (Hmmm, I guess I am)? Why the heck have I never seen it? How come they do not show it at the sleezy place where I go to guzzle beer? How come they do not show it on Saturday morning right after the Pee Wee Herman Show? Oops. Wrong decade! Anyway.... Michael: Please consider rewording that. Amorrow 03:33, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

mainstream n. The prevailing current of thought, influence, or activity. Its a word that very well describes what happened. What's your problem with it? Michael L. Kaufman 03:47, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
Let me ask the rhetorical question: Are you out of your mind? I do want an answer from you(it is a question that is supposed to make you think). I want you to think about the circumstances where that kind of question comes up. If somebody told me that Deep Throat was mainstream (and let us say that I had no adult judgment) and I took it upon myself to go out onto the sidewalk (and no children are present) and ask both men and women about Deep Throat and all I wanted to do was talk about it, we all know what would happen. I would be asked once if I was out of my mind and then somebody would call the cops. As they put the handcuffs on me, the officers would probably not be very receptive (nor the judge later) to my argument that Deep Throat is mainstream. Based on this astounding insight, I therefore claim that Deep Throat is not mainstream in any case. What say you sir?
I say you talk because you like to hear yourself talk, and I decline to participate. I'd answer this question coming from an editor in good faith, but you I'll simply pretend I didn't hear. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:22, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
My point is this: Wikipedia has a wide audience. I choose court and the law as a model, because the rules apply to us all. Grade school kids can look at this stuff. Let us not force the teacher to say to the kid "Oh, the person who wrote that does not know what they were talking about. Let us not use Wikipedia." I am just asking you to rephrase it a little. Amorrow 19:37, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


You think I am being mean to you. I'll tell you: I do not even know if I am being mean to you. Just hear me out. I am not afraid of kids seeing nudity. You look at these pages, most of which I have not created as new, but I worked on them.

Note that in these cases, they do not include blow jobs. Come on. Even Monica did not make blow jobs "mainstream". I am really not trying to impose my will. OK, maybe for you, at this time in your life, blow jobs are no big deal. Of course, no one gets hurt or anything. But you are part of a larger society and mainstream is a word and it has a meaning. You try to mainstream retarded kids back into regular schools. Boring commercial stuff is mainstream. Blow jobs are not mainstream, no matter how much Internet porno of them is out there. You cannot judge by the Internet because it is the Street where filth and freedom mix. You have to go into the home. The parents do not want the kids looking at blow jobs. The kids want to get the heck outta the house so they can watch the blow jobs if they wanna. They finally get out and they get to watch it and even do it. That does not make it mainstream. Those kids grow up and do the same thing to their kids. You have to look at the whole society, not just the little peer group you are in right now.

[edit] Notes on naming

"My name is not Linda Lovelace." -- Linda Boreman

"When naming an article about specific people or specific groups always use the terminology which those individuals or organizations use, self identification (see list below)." -- WikiPedia:Naming conventions (identity)

"Several general and specific guidelines further specify that article names preferably: ... 3. are not insulting;" -- WikiPedia:Naming conventions (people)

I'm just sayin'. Radgeek 01:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Yet "Linda Lovelace" is the name under which she published "Ordeal" and "Out of Bondage." Saranary 18:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Minor correction - her car accident was in 1970. The 1969 is gaining popularity from an error in a National Review article by Job Bob Briggs._70.120.166.202 00:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm jumping into this argument a bit late but surely the most comparable examples are http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_Stevens and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_tyson both of whom have preffered names but whose pages are titled after there most well known names. Tyson's only seems to briefly mention his name change.Schnizzle 14:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changed POV statements under "Books"

I changed the following statement:

"Boreman, with other writers, has written two autobiographies:

There are also so-called biographies of Boreman that focus mainly on her sexual exploits, whether real or imagined:

It is POV to imply that the first two are Boreman's "real" autobiographies and the other three are "so-called" biographies. (In particular, listing "Complete Linda Lovelace" in which Boreman herself recants certain parts of "Ordeal" and "Out of Bondage", as a "so-called" biography is blatantly POV.) All five books are "as told to" biographies and in all five the actual author could be accused of having an agenda, whether anti-porn or to promote her as a porn star. It is not the job of Wikipedia writers to tell readers which is more authentic. If somebody wants to write a section explaining the circumstances around each biography and what is claimed in each, go right ahead, but please make sure the section is balanced and POV.

In the meantime, I've simply listed them as authorized biographies and put them in chronological order. Iamcuriousblue 02:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Softcore Movies

"she starred in several softcore movies, which flopped"...marvellous! Auximines 20:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Surely not.

"Deep Throat was notable for popularizing oral sex" So oral sex wasn't popular before Deep Throat came out?! I can't believe that. Surely Oral sex has been popular since the first cave man discovered he could stick it in more places than one.Schnizzle 08:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I argued this one a couple of years ago, saying that at least it should read something like "popularizing in the mainstream" or some such. It got beaten down by a bunch of people, including moralists of one stripe or another.... Hayford Peirce 20:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I've edited it because it is a ridiculous claim to make. There is no way that Oral sex aws unpopular before the film.Schnizzle 10:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/n/Talk%7ELinda_Lovelace_b50e.html"