Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Porn stars/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I moved the biography template to the Templates section and added {{male adult bio}} to the infoboxes.

Penis size was the only non-trivial measurement I could come up with, even if the data on that is usually very unreliable. If anybody else has an idea, just edit it accordingly.

I guess it'll get interesting if we ever add an infobox for transexual porn stars o_O Ashmodai 09:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

  • emmm , can anyone explain the sense of these info-boxes for me? I´ve noticed , that informations about pics are disappearing (reverted) in that moment when someone creates an info-box. Greetings MutterErde 11:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Contents

NPOV picture debate

Moved by Joe Beaudoin Jr..

Why is it considered NPOV violation? It would be like only allowing images of Chairman Mao showing him in a t-shirt and shorts. They are known BECAUSE they are "sexy", it would be violation of NPOV to depict them as everyday people. ~~~~ 20:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

NPOV isn't precisely what I meant. Problem with nudity on Wikipedia -- in the United States at least -- is the 18 U.S.C. 2257. More to the point, the 2257 was recently amended, forcing sites such as the iafd to not list boxcovers, because they would have to maintain the proper records as well in order to comply with the 2257. Since Wikipedia -- to my knowledge anyway -- doesn't have records, nudity should be avoided, otherwise it'll imperil the project. For more information, see: Free Speech Coalition's pages on the 2257. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 22:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  • In that case, what it says on the front page should be amended. Kappa 14:48, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Egads, don't tell me that boobie censorship goes for ALL WikiMedia projects regardless of language!
It's bad enough the USA is that ... erm... "special". WikiMedia should consider moving their servers to the Canaries or something. -- Ashmodai 22:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Categorization

All of the male porn stars have been moved out of Category:Porn stars into Category:Male porn stars. Does anyone know how to transfer the female porn stars into a new "Femele porn stars" category en masse, or does it have to be done in each article? Or, is there a way to rename Category:Porn stars to Category:Female porn stars, then it would be straightforward to re-create Category:Porn stars and transfer the articles and sub-categories that should be there back in. Zeromacnoo 18:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Warning: I am not an expert on Wiki movement, but I think you can hit move and it will move it to a new name category. --Noitall 21:04, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

You need to manually edit each article, sorry, or you can create a bot (computer software) to do it for you and ask a bureaucrat for bot permissions. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 21:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Copyright on gif images

We have a new copyright issue on animated gif images such as Image:Tbcatw.gif. I think this is equivalent to a screen shot or promotional photo and because it constitutes about 0.1% of the entire program, I think it constitutes fair use. But this is a new issue. Some discussion at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags I think a new category should be created. --Noitall 00:41, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

Sexual orientation

I have noticed that there are different interpetations of what should be listed as an actress' orientation. Some posters (myself included) list an actress as Bisexual if she is has appeared in a few lesbian scenes, even if she primarily is in m/f scenes. Other posters list an actress as Heterosexual if they are (presumably) strictly heterosexual in their private life. The immediate example that I want to change to Bisexual is Keri Sable, and the rationale used to keep her at Heterosexual is listed here[1]. Anyone know what the best policy for use here is? Olessi 20:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I would go by renaming "Sexual orientation" to something less ambiguous. I don't think many actors would act strongly against their true sexual orientation, but there is always the random bisexual who only does straight scenes (or the opposite of that -- some porn actresses turn to exclusively doing lesbian scenes after marrying). I would go strictly by what genders they have had sex with on camera, since that is more interesting to know than whom they would date in private (and especially so because "sexual orientation" can mean anything from "whom you fantasize about" to "whom you could have a relationship with" or "whom you would have sex with").
I doubt that every porn actress who has performed with a female partner would consider herself bisexual (or lesbian). Also, bisexuality is a tough topic (see above definition problems for "orientation"). I'm afraid I can't come up with a decent term, but something short with the meaning of "genders of the partners he/she has performed with" would work best (leaving out terms like "homosexual"/"heterosexual"/"bisexual", which could become increasingly problematic if we are going to cover transgendered porn act-..uhm...resses, I guess). Ashmodai 15:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
How about "Onscreen Orientation" or variations thereof (Professional O., Public O.)? Olessi 17:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
On-Stage Orientation maybe? Ashmodai 19:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm ok with that. Anyone else have any input? Olessi 15:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
This kind of information is usually addressed as Does:g-g, b-g. This would also enable info about what kind of sexual activities he/she performs (but I'm not sure if stating e.g. bdsm would be OK) Kro 14:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
If we were to use that terminology what possible pairings might be used? g-g, b-g, b-b (or instead F-F, M-F, M-M) etc. Olessi 16:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

An "orientation" or "personal orientation" categorization is meaningless, at least with women, because they're actors playing a role. This is as useless as categorizing mainstream actors as villains or buddies. A female star does an F-F scene because she's getting paid for it, not because she's a lesbian. Straight men wouldn't do a gay role, but for women, this categorization should be eliminated. Even if a star publicizes herself as bi or a lesbian, it's just image-making that has little basis in reality or wikipedia. A category for "acting orientation" (L, B, or G) would be OK. Ghosts&empties 21:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Original meanings and so forth...

WikiProject Porn stars/Archive 1
Birthdate: April 9, 1974
Birth location: Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
Birth name: Jenna Marie Massoli
Measurements: 34DD-23-33 (91-58-84 cm)
Height: 5 ft 7 in (1.68 m)
Weight: 115 lb (50 kg)
Eye color: Blue
Hair color: Blonde (currently Brunette)
Natural bust: No
Orientation: Bisexual (acting), Heterosexual (personal)
Ethnicity: Caucasian Italian
[Club Jenna (Official Site) - contains adult content Official Website]

When I came up with the template, the field was more or less meant for the actress' personal sesxual orientation -- not what kind of work she did on screen. However, without adding further complication to the template, how about doing something like: Bisexual (acting), Heterosexual (personal) -- as demonstrated on the field to the right. (Note: I ripped the female adult bio code from Jenna Jameson, so the above is just an example -- not a fact.) This removes the need to edit the template, and thus edit any articles that may be using it at this time. Thoughts, questions, concerns? -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 22:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I feel that "orientation" in terms of this project should indicate the types of scenes that the individual has performed in. Because these actresses are involved with erotica available for public consumption, it seems relevant to state what type of scenes the actress has appeared in during her professional career. Also, none of the other templates list private orientation. It is easy for contributors to research the professional orientation of an actor through filmography sites like IAFD. However, there is not a lot of reliable information about the private lives of adult actresses, unlike mainstream actresses.

Joe's suggestion about adding the type of orientation in parentheses is a good one, but we still have to go article by article to clarify what is listed (or am I wrong?). In my opinion, by default the field should indicate the acting/public/on-stage orientation (which is publicly available and relates directly to their profession), while the private orientation should be additionally listed when known. Olessi 20:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Something to keep in mind when listing the private orientation of an actress is if the orientation has changed. For instance, Nikki Tyler apparently had an off-screen relationship with Jenna Jameson during the mid-90s, but is currently married with a son. I do not know the accuracy of this information- should we list her as bisexual because at one time she was involved with women (and still might be), or heterosexual since she is married to a man? Olessi 22:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

How would you classify girl doing masturbation only? As asexual? what about doing outercourse with B and oral sex with G? Hetero- bi- or homosexual? Still what he/she performs is information of the biggest value for the reader. User:Kro 00:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Maybe we should change the term used then as per Kro's suggestion above. Instead of "Orientation", we could use "Performs with:" or something similar. Olessi 17:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Categorization

Firstly, I have no idea why I'm here. I don't like porn or porn stars really... uhhh. So. Right. The categorization sucks a lot. I have made Category:Porn stars by nationality to house the nationalities. We need to develop a structure of categories.

Something along those lines. Also, ethinicty national lines need to be straightened out. gren グレン 01:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the Porn stars by nationality category has worked out pretty well, and a Porn stars by ethnicity one has potential. We could divide them into fairly broad sub-categories (most of which would cross state boundaries), such as black pornstars, hispanic porn stars, East Asian pornstars, South Asian pornstars, Jewish pornstars, Slavic pornstars, etc. There'd be no need for a category like Japanese pornstars, as that already exists in the nationality section. It'd be another useful way of researching the entries besides just considering what country someone is from. --Alsayid 22:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Porn performer

Hi there!
First of all, thanks a lot for this project, as the porn topics really needed to be categorize.

I do understand that you prefer "porn stars" to "porn actors/actresses", but imho porn performer would be even better, since it's the most accurate term and it's also very common, even by those concerned - see all the award shows, events, databases (iafd) etc.
The term "porn star" somehow implies that every performer working in the industry is a 'star'. It's only a commercial thing. Belladonna is a porn star, but Yexes Dine isn't one, yet they're both porn performers.
What do you think?
Magicstrip 01:09, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

"Actor" is more established as a term as this is about people acting in movies, even though they don't tend to be casted for their Shakespearean qualities. Porn actor thus works. Pornographic performer would be overly PC, but I don't think it's as accurate or common. Ashmodai 09:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

You're right Ashmodai, "Actor" is more established as a term. But then, why did you chose "porn star" for all the categories you are creating in this project ? "Pornographic performer" would be overly PC this is true again, because no one would ever speak of "pornographic performers" just like no one would ever say "pornographic star". There is a subtle difference between the common term "porn performer" and "pornographic performer".
I don't want to start a controversy here, as again I am really happy and thankfull for what you're doing (creating templates and categories etc.)
Just notice that the leading porn-information providers are all referring to "porn performers" (iafd.com, adultvideonews.com, rame.net, xrco.com, spectator.net, searchextreme.com, and databases such as adultdvdempire.com etc. just to name a few)
Magicstrip 13:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, all these terms -- erotic actress, porn star, and pornographic performer -- are all bloated in some way, shape or form. Unfortunately, the inaccurate term "porn star" seems to be common place, and as Wikipedia tends to identify something by how it is more commonly known, "porn stars" just seems to be the term we've used to identify pornographic performers. However, I don't believe that this is a serious issue as, in my view, I believe that there are other things that require attention other than semantics. Just my two cents. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 22:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Joe: Wikipedia style isgenerally to identify articles on the basis of how people usually think of them. "Porn star" is the most common term, so that's how people looking for information will look for these articles. I agree that it is a puffed-up term, but it is so commonplace that it is probably losing its hype factor anyway. And the work involved in converting the categories, lists and links would be better directed toward creating new articles and improving existing ones. Zeromacnoo 02:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I know that this is not a huge issue, but I am more on the "performer" side. It sounds a little more "scientific", but that's the approach an encyclopedia should have. Also, we have to think ahead of the present. "Performer" in porn refers to any kind of role on can have in pornography: actor, model, or whatever. As it goes, porn becomes more and more multi-media: between the star of a feature-film from a major company and the college student making extra money by showing it off on webcam, there is a world of difference. But I think they are all "pornographic performers." Also, with all the gonzo porn and "reality tv" inspired videos, the terms "actor" and "star" can be inappropriate for some people who just had sex in front of the camera. Of course, in their own article, people like Jenna Jameson should be refered to as porn stars because that is their specific niche with porn performers. ...That's to think about.
By the way the project is interesting and I added my name to the list of contributors. Is that allright or do I have to ask permission?
Em79 17:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Em79! You've given me something to think about; performer is a more generic term and your comments make sense. By the way, welcome to the project! Feel free to add yourself to the list of contributors. You don't need permission. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 18:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Real names

After a number of recent controversial edits (see User talk:CelticJobber), I would like to raise the suggestion of removing the real names of actors and actresses altogether. The actors choose stage names for personal reasons, which I think should be respected. If an actor has publicly released the real name, such as in an autobiography or an interview, I see no reason not to include the real name. However, in the interests of privacy I feel that real names should not be given just because of personal acquaintanceships or revealing documents are exposed to the public domain. Olessi 21:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Personally I would like to see real names removed altogether. Even in situations where the performer has made it public. I don't see how this information benefits anyone. I think it's invasion of a performer's privacy. Really I feel listing a performer's real name is nearly as bad as listing a home address. --Pinworm 22:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Just my $0.02: I think real names are encyclopedic, home addresses are not. Forbiding ourselves to show real names would be renouncing information in the name of privacy. Of course, I can think of plenty of cases where that would be a Good thing but, in the case of pors stars (or any other celebrity) real names, I'm inclined to disagree . --Abu Badali 15:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Joe's reply

As an editor who has dealt with porn performers, and by extension someone who is often a "go-to guy" for these sort of things, I believe that the real names of porn stars should be added to the entries. Porn stars should not be discrimiated against just because they tend to go under stage names; in fact, entries on pornographic performers should be treated the same as an entry on a mainstream Hollywood personality. We list the true birth name of Carmen Electra, John Wayne, et al. Why not the birth name of a porn star? Also, I do not (and will never) buy the argument that posting their name is the same as posting their home address -- this is a straw man argument, pure and simple.

Having said that, however, I will agree that information obtained illegally -- i.e. through hacking a computer system with said information or by other illegal means -- should not be used. (Anyway, such information will probably be removed due to the lack of verifiability and the no original research clause.) On the other hand, names from public government documents, newspapers, and valid sources should be used. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not here to protect people from information. Not to start any ethics battles, but if we start nitpicking what information we do provide under the "for privacy" blanket, then where does it end? What will be left of an article if we start deciding on what information we should provide? Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors -- and, to evolve on that, we are not censored for the protection of others. As far as I'm concerned, that is not our mandate. (And, in fact, "protecting privacy" is a form of POV as far as I'm concerned, and that spits in the face of NPOV. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 04:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree it would be unencyclopedic not to post their real names.
--The Mad Bomber 04:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it would not be in the spirit of WP to omit this information Oldcritter 17:49 10 June 2006

Notability

As always, there are editors who seek to delete WIkipedia articles on porns tars on the basis of "non-notability". Are there any precedents on what makes a porn star notable or non-notable? Currently, there is a tag on Dex Brown (porn star), which is otherwise a fine stub article. I fear that without proper support, it will be easy for deletionists to begin undoing the work of may editors just because they don't thinnk that articles on porn stars belong on Wikipedia. Zeromacnoo 23:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

For notability on porn stars, you can see how many movies the person in question hs been in. Typically, the IAFD and IMDB are good places to start. Anything within the 100 range seems to stay. Moreover, if you could find anything that would cement notability (say a controversey surrounding the person in question or some other relevant news item), that would probably help out as well. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 23:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for repsonding. Unfortunately, the 100-film standard not a very useful standard for gay porn. I think that there would be very few -- if any -- gay porn stars who have appeared in over 100 porn films. Since the market is smaller than for straight porn, I don't think there is room for that many movies with the same guy over hte relatively short span of the typical gay porn star's career. Thanks anyway. Zeromacnoo 23:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
No problem. If anything, this conversation proves that standards should not be universally applied, and instead applied depending on the subject at hand. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 23:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Some relevant links:

There are some more porn stars on AfD at present, but in fact they don't seem especially notable, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spring Thomas Esquizombi 05:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the links Schizombie. The issue is that there still isn't a criteria for porn stars. The discussions seem to be very spirited then fizzle out into nothingness. No one acts on what's been discussed, primarily because we run into this no-consensus problem. Perhaps it is time for a formal proposal on inclusion of porn stars? I would be willing to write one up, if people are willing to discuss the issue. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 14:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Might be worthwhile. I was surprised by the remarks at N (p) that porn stars are not draws, which I disagree with; I wonder if some discussion on why preserving information about (at least some) porn stars and porn movies is important. Finding some things that have been published on that question might be useful, if possible. Esquizombi 15:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

We have many intresting discussions in here Thizz 20:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Sources

There is a situation over at Angela Devi, in which the woman may have died. I say "may" because there does not appear to have been any coverage in offical press, so the assertion is based on a briefly-posted web announcement and private emails, including a correspondence I had with her webmaster which convinced me. Devi was a stage name. Apparently there are a number of rumors going around on forums about the circumstances. If anyone from this project can find a more reliable source source for this information, or provide a better perspective, then I'd appreciate it. Cheers, -Will Beback 08:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Notability proposal

I have drafted a propsal on defining notability for pornographic performers. Any feedback, whether in the form of comments or suggestions, would be appreciated. Thanks! -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 22:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Prudishness-motivated AfD

Matthew Rush (porn star) is one of the biggest names in gay porn right now, but the article, which is well-written and properly linked and categorized, has been nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Rush (porn star). The only motivation appears to be prudishness. Zeromacnoo 10:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Most the entries sound like PR pieces

Anyone disagree?

I disagree. Look at Brandy Alexandre, kind of a sad story. Heck, look at Brooke Ashley - hard to imagine a more sad story. But I haven't read them all. If you find articles that look like puff pieces, tag them {{Advert}} or {{NPOV}} and/or post about them here, and we'll clean them up to be more neutral point of view. AnonEMouse 12:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I also disagree. However, since you bring up the question, are we to assume that you came across articles that you feel are PR pieces? If so, could you please provide us with the articles, so that we have some examples to work with? We would very much appreciate it! -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 16:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Another hasty AfD

The first time the List of Perfect 10 models was put up for deletion and received several quick votes against it because some didn't know that Perfect 10 referred to a magazine. Fortunately, enough people chimed in to "keep." Now it's nominated again. Even though over 40 models are linked to their own Wikipedia entries, the claim is made that almost none of them are notable!

The worst part, though, is that some are saying that since an un-named model told someone in an e-mail that she didn't want to be listed, the WHOLE list should be deleted! Not only should an entire list not be deleted for that, but if successful, the same argument can be made to delete any other adult oriented list. Please voice your opinions on this AfD here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Perfect 10 models (second nomination) --Alsayid 21:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Then the sane course of action would be to remove that model from the list... as I've indicated in my vote on the AFD. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 02:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

"For sexual orientation"

I don't believe these categories have anything to do with porn or this project - and should be removed:

Tertiary7 06:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Honestly, according to the descriptions of both categories, both can apply to biographical articles on people on Wikipedia. They should be carefully used, but when used correctly I don't see the issue that you bring up. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 03:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Helping out

I'd like to help out with this section, is there anything specific I could do to help out? --NavyAO2(AW) 00:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, what is it that you want to do? It's easier to do something you enjoy doing, so what kind of porn related articles would you like to tackle?
Now, there is a to-do list, which contains a list of what articles need to be worked on specifically. Also, you can see if you can expand the Category:Pornography stubs and Category:Pornographic actor stubs. Hope that helps! -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 01:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I can pretty much tackle anything. I have an idea though, I was thinking I could maybe compile a list of celebrities that have been in porn. Would that help?--NavyAO2(AW) 02:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Lists are tricky, since they often don't have much content, and the inclusion of a name on one can be debatable. Specifically for this one, what does "celebrity" mean? For example, most of the porn performers we list here are "celebrities", since we try to only list the more famous ones. Does that mean we add them all to this list too? And if you mean "mainstream celebrities" ... does that include porn actors who have moved on to minor roles and sexploitation films, like Ginger Lynn, Tracy Lords, and R. Bolla? And what does "have been in porn" mean - do Malcolm McDowell and Peter O'Toole qualify because of Caligula (film)? It's kind of big, debatable can of worms. I personally would be wary of it, and would recommend you stick to more straight forward articles for your early contributions, like on Joe's big TODO list. There it's pretty simple, they're clearly porn stars, and most of them are fairly notable except the ones Joe specifically notes may not be. AnonEMouse (squeak) 12:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not a big fan of lists, since lists can be on pretty much anything under, over, and on top of the sun, as it were. I prefer categories myself, particularly when we're linking to articles that already exists. Also, people's involvement in porn should be listed in the biographical articles themselves, at least in my view anyway. :-) -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 14:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


Not a problem, but for clarification what I meant was celebrities like Paris Hilton, Jenna Lewis from "Survivor", Tom Sizemore, and Pamela Anderson, who have appeared in pornographic films even though they were not porn stars. --NavyAO2(AW) 15:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Paris Hilton

Are you certainly sure Paris Hilton qualifes as a porn star; yes, she has created a celebrity sex tape, but I believe it was leaked. I don't see Colin Farrell being listed here... Kilo-Lima|(talk) 18:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

From the 1 Night in Paris article: the tape was originally leaked, but eventually authorized. So I can see calling her a porn star. AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't really see calling her a porn being that she doesn't really do for a living. I see calling someone a porn star if they do it for a living and make money off it--NavyAO2(AW) 21:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Porn_stars_Archive_1_c7a1.html"