Talk:Celebrity sex tape

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pornography Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Pornography, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to pornography-related topics 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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 1 May 2008. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Contents

[edit] "Allison Williams" tape

I'm curious about the reasons for the removel of mention of the Allison Williams tape. The reason given was that it's a "known fake celebrity video" what does that mean? MK2 04:59, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've done a little research. Here's what I found out: there is a video tape of a woman engaging in sexual acts in what appears to be the back of a TV news-van. The woman is not named in the tape. Reports about the tape have allegedly identified the woman as Allison Williams, who is supposedly a reporter for an ABC affiliate WVEC in Virginia. Some of these reports have also identified this woman as a former Miss West Virginia.
Now here's what I think I was able to confirm: the tape does exist as described. There is a former Miss West Virginia named Allison Williams but she is not the woman in the tape and she has filed a lawsuit against several people advertising it as such. WVAC did have an employee named Allison Williams at one point but she apparently was not a reporter. There is also apparently a reporter named Allison Williams who works for a newspaper in a town in WVEC's broadcast area but there is no indication that she has worked for WVEC. Neither of these women are the same woman as the former Miss West Virginia (who is a law student not a reporter). And there is no indication that any of these Allison Williamses is the woman in the video tape. Nor, in fact, is there any evidence to indicate that the woman in the tape is actually named Allison Williams. MK2 08:02, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I've cut the text below out of the main article, and tried to be concise in what I've put instead. I figure that if no-one knows exactly who the alleged TV reporter is then she doesn't qualify as a true celebrity. RevJohn 02:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
*A tape has been put out that allegedly shows Miss West Virginia 2003 and TV reporter Allison Williams and her cameraman. This tape is false. Ms Williams is a former Miss West Virginia but she is a law student not a reporter nor is she the woman in the video.
The tape is not false; however, the Ms. Williams who was Miss West Virginia is NOT the woman involved and seen in the video. The woman in the video is, in fact, another Allison Williams, who apparently graduated from East Carolina University, and who worked for several other news outlets before she came to WVEC-TV sometime in 1999. Information is obviously quite sketchy, as WVEC-TV disavowed the Ms. Williams whom they had employed and purged their website of any references to Ms. Williams. One source had been located, however, which shows that while affiliated with WVEC and 'GoHamptonRoads.com' in 1999, she was involved in news content and was also involved with the 6:00 a.m.-7:00 a.m. morning news broadcast. She also did segments from the Channel 13 News helicopter. It is also possible that this Ms. Williams was also employed by NewsNet 5, a station in Cleveland, Ohio.


My name is cathedral107, and I am the one who put the material in about the 'allison williams' who worked at the TV station - and the correct call letters are WVEC-TV. I have actual evidence to confirm the material I posted. I will make this material availiable upon request.

Hi Cathedral107! I guess my comment above was bit of a throw-away one - I'm an Australian who really doesn't know the relative importance of the various US TV presenters. The main reason I moved the material here is that the entry referred to false tapes followed by a comment saying that the tape is not false. Not very classy for a page in an encyclopedia that's already on what some may say a pretty unclassy topic! Of course the beauty of wiki is that anyone can change the entries if they feel so inclined. Go for it everyone! Speaking of which, this entry is turning into a list, perhaps a second page should be created and this article can talk more about the social phenomena of the celeb sex tape? RevJohn 14:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jo O'Meara - Real statement or Fake

I recently saw this added to the page and I wanted to question its truth.

Former S Club 7 members Jo O'Meara and Jon Lee are in a graphic sex tape in which Lee uses a variety of sex toys on O'Meara.'

 There was also a mention of this on the link to Jo O'Meara's page on Wikipedia that expaned on the claim.

In May 2005, Jo was shocked to learn a graphic sex tape she made with former S Club mate Jon Lee had been released on the Internet. Jon uses a variety of sex toys on Jo in the tape and it is one of the few celebrity sex tapes to feature a female cumming.

I have done multiple searches and not been able to find any links or sources to verify this. I have also found nothing under any news former, current or archived. And it also appears there is nowhere to even download the supposed tape. No torrent sites even list the alleged tape and being that this would be likely a popular download find it hard to believe no site would host it or even list it. Can anyone back the claims up or should I delete the statements? Lummie 13:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello! I would definitely delete these comments if there is no verifiable source of information regarding this alleged tape. Hfguide 20:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
As far as I know, there is no sex video featuring Jo O'Meara. A few years ago though, there were photos that her boyfriend of her in a hotel room where she was topless that were leaked onto the internet. This is probably what has started the false claims of a sex tape.

[edit] Removal of certain "Celebs"

I wanted to put forth whether certain people removed from the list should be removed. Most notably the ones taken off by Yamla and the reason given that there is not a page made up for them on Wikipedia so that should exclude them. I feel that if its a leaked tape and they are semi famous then their inclusion is note worthy. More importantly I feel judging on the fact a Wikipedia page has not been setup for them not enough to discredit them from the list of celeb sex tapes?

Anyone else want to comment?

Lummie 03:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Lummie. While I certainly think they don't warrant a mention on this page unless they have their own wikipedia article, I'll certainly listen if enough people disagree. --Yamla 05:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
It is very easy to create a page for semi celebs, it takes less than a minute to create a stub-article. If the criterium for being mentioned on this page is having your own article on Wikipedia, I will create an article for the TV-reporter Allison Williams as soon as I notice someone removed her from this page. Ik.pas.aan 15:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A suggestion

Maybe we should divide these tapes into three groups: Confirmed tapes - those like the Pamela Anderson-Tommy Lee video, where nobody is disputed the existence of the tape; Rumored tapes - for the majority of tapes where claims have been made but the identities of the celebrities has neither been proven or disproven; and Fraudulant tapes - for cases like the Alyson Hanigan tape which have been proven fake.

I don't think we should eliminate any tapes from being mentioned - even those known to be fake. In all cases the rumors are still circulating on the internet. We should provide the factual information about these tapes rather than ignore their existence. MK2 05:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I like that idea because I find there are sometimes reports of certain tapes like Britney Spears that create news and whether they exist or not shouldn't be dismissed because there is no evidence of them. Lummie 06:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree also. Best idea on this discussion page so far IMHO. Please implement Ik.pas.aan 23:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I added the splits so hopefully that helps the article Lummie 14:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with this (two year old) idea. I've always thought there should be some order on this page, such as listed in numerical order (either of their film or release date) or in alphabetical order (by the most prominent celebrity) Either way, a confirmed, rumored and fake sections is definetly needed. The purpose of this website is to provide information, I think that listing the fake videos will stop vandalism. If there are no arguments someone should add it. Tydamann (talk) 13:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Avril Lavigne

There is a tape going around on file sharing networks that is supposedly of Avril Lavigne, I can't find any other information (not that I've actually looked hard at the moment), and given teh above conversation, it would warrant being a Rumoured tape. I will try to find some any sites mentioning this rumour, then add it if theres anything worth adding.

I can hardly find anything out there on the alleged tape so I don't think it warrants an mention as Rumour. I feel there must be some foundation to a rumour like that such as its a widespread rumour or has gained some media attention, other wise it could be rumoured any celebrity has a sex tape out there. Lummie 03:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, I couldn't find anything either, but there is definatley a video claiming to be of her, but of course if there's no information it's pointless mentioning it Cryomaniac 18:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism query

Is this vandalism or is the section removed for a valid reason? Please advise. --Einsidler 12:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pamela Anderson & Kid Rock Sex Tape

According to http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2004580002-2006450726,00.html she has appeared in a sex tape with Kid Rock and I quote "performing a variety of imaginative sex acts". Pamela herself then goes on to acknowledge that the tape exists. I'm not sure if there's anything on file sharing programs yet though.

Pretty sure thats a mistake, i think they mean tommy lee, im sure they'll change it soon.

[edit] Biographies of living persons

I've removed most of the entries in this article under the "Biographies of living persons" policy, which states: Editors should remove any controversial material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. I understand that much of what I deleted can be proven true, but in the meantime, it can't stay here. I have no issue with any of those entries returning if they're properly sourced. Thanks. | Mr. Darcy talk 17:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I just reverted User:Commander Zulu's revert. WP:BLP is a core policy. All of those entries can go back in the article if they are accompanied by appropriate citations, but if not, they are clear violations of BLP. | Mr. Darcy talk 00:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with these deletions for several reasons, primarily because it's not appropriate to delete 90% of an article without discussing it on the talk page first, and secondly because most of the sex tapes mentioned are well known to exist, even if there's no reliable print source definitively listing them. (For example, you deleted the reference to "One Night In Paris", of which there is a cover shot on this article's page, and which can be bought from most Adult Shops!) I accept that not all of these entries can be conclusively proven, but the best thing to do is to identify which ones CAN be positively cited or are well known to exist, and remove the others- not just wipe all of them and replace them later. This will lead to people coming to the article and saying "How come they don't have the Paris Hilton/Abi Titmuss/Mimi Macpherson tape listed here?" and adding it anyway. Easier to avoid the problems by working on the page gradually, IMHO. --Commander Zulu 00:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
While I understand your thinking, in this case, there's no wiggle room. It's not appropriate to delete 90% of an article without discussing it on the talk page first would be true if the page wasn't violating a crucial policy that is quite strict on matters like this. I agree that some users will add back these items without sourcing, but it's on us to delete such entries. We can't just leave entries that we believe to be valid if they're not sourced. Sourcing is mandatory here; no source, no content. | Mr. Darcy talk 01:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
How does one source something generally obtained from Peer-to-Peer Filesharing Networks and the like? --Commander Zulu 03:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
My guess is that all of the true sex tapes will be documented somewhere in news articles, perhaps on entertainment news sites like E! Online, but often in mainstream papers. | Mr. Darcy talk 05:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Er, I see most of the fake/fraud list has vanished - which seems daft because i) the heading clearly states the tapes to be fake/fraud & ii) a lot of these tapes are in the public domain, if incorrectly identified (eg) the Alyson Hannigan tape has been conclusively shown to be Luna Lane. Despite this, Hannigan is commonly thought to have a sextape, unless a site like Wikipedia can state with authority otherwise. I could point you to the original 'Hannigan/Lane' sex video release website, but as its explicit, I can hardly add it as a reference ! ... This is likely to be problem for a number of these tapes (ie) concrete proof they've been mis-identified, but also not referencable due to content. How do you solve that one ?

Also, surely its beyond dispute that say R Kelly made a sextape ? But its also gone. This seems a silly application of policy for policy's sake - common sense must prevail ! If other media (eg newspaper) consensus is that a tape is legitimate, and the celebrity in question has never rebutted it, shouldn't this count for its inclusion ? I presume you're worried about legal action, but some balance on such a likelihood of legal acton should come into the decision. And if other legitimate outlets (eg newspapers or TV) are confident of their facts, this must lend to credibility of the tapes attribution. (And again you may have problems in referencing a site due to content) The Yeti 03:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"Common sense" - however you're defining it - does not trump WP:BLP: controversial or contentious material MUST be sourced. Period. | Mr. Darcy talk 04:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I understand where you're coming from, but two things need clarifying still - i) where the heading is clearly stating fake/fraud tapes, surely the proof need not be as rigorous. We are after all saying the celebrity did not do this tape ! (can Wiki still be still be sued for that ?) For instance, if (eg) E!Online stated there was a Hannigan sextape, but it was fake, is that an anti-proof ?! ii) What is to be done where a conclusive proof (either for or against the existence of a tape) can be sourced, but due to explicit content a link referencing it cannot be listed ? The Yeti 19:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I've just had another thought - maybe if we just list in these talk pages the name of the celeb that has been rumoured/assumed real, but not go into any details. Then others can at least (if they have the time) try and hunt down a creditable reference/source, based on the name alone. After all, I doubt you can be sued for writing just (eg) 'Alyson Hannigan sextape' or 'R Kelly sex video' and nothing else ? OK, so anyone could write any name (British Queen sextape!), but some names will crop up more often than others, but those that are obviously nonsense can be weeded out. After all, you've already got some of a list starting in the headings above, and other Wikipedians will add their own, making this talk page very long if there's a heading for each ! Or the subject completely undiscussable if they're all deleted as soon as a name is mentioned. The Yeti 19:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thats a BLP violation also. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Instead of a one line replies all the time, please elaborate. I raised a number of points above that deserve a better discussion. And don't just quote the policy (I can read that for myself), but prove why it is a violation. As in all things, it is NOT just black and white. Whatever your status on Wikipedia, you can't just law down the law without arguing your point. Or are you going to delete all the headings above as well ? Wikipedia is a consensus site. The Yeti 22:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
It's a consensus site when there's not a policy being violated. Writing "Alyson Hannigan sextape" without reliable sourcing would violate BLP, blatantly. Even putting it on the talk page is forbidden under BLP. And yes, thanks, I'm going to delete those entries above. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
When I was at university, I was repeatedly told that we did not need to cite things which where Common Knowledge. It is common knowledge that R. Kelly, Abi Titmuss, and Mimi MacPherson made sex tapes, just as even your grandparents are probably aware Paris Hilton has a tape circulating of her doing some rather unladylike things in night-vision. And why do you care so much about this BLP policy? It's not like any of these people are on WP (I'd be very surprised if Paris Hilton or Britney Spears even know WP exists!). You're the only one here who cares about this "policy", and quite frankly, I think you're being far too quick with the delete button. IT IS NOT CONTROVERSIAL IF EVERYONE KNOWS THESE TAPES EXIST. Listing a Sex Tape featuring Angelina Jolie and Vince Vaughan, for example (to pick two names at random), would be controversial because it hasn't conclusively been proven to exist. But most of the sex tapes listed here prior to MrDarcy's deletion spree were either in the "Common Knowledge" category of existence, or Clearly Labelled as being Fake/Fraudulent. I just don't see how that's a violation of the policy, and I think most of us here would like a better explanation than "Because I say so" or "Because a policy that none of us had any input on says so". --Commander Zulu 00:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
An "open secret" is not quite the same thing as "everyone knows". Pretty much all of Hollywood knew Rock Hudson was a flaming queen, but if any of them said it in front of a reporter, there would've been hell to pay. Ford MF 01:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
You can skirt the issue all you want by attacking me, but the bottom line is that we have to obey the policy (and as an admin, I'm expected to uphold it). "Common knowledge" is not sufficient for Wikipedia on these matters. If "everyone knows these tapes exist," then it shouldn't be hard to find a citation, should it? | Mr. Darcy talk 00:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Please don't think I'm attacking you- I'm not. I'm attacking your implementation of this "policy" without any prior discussion or input from anyone else. And as for cites- well, I'm not particularly keen on wading through vapid celebrity gossip websites in the hope of catching a mention of a particular sex tape. --Commander Zulu 00:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I seriously think you need to bring in other senior admins to support your argument before you just go deleting everything. It really needs more than one person's opinion/interpretation of the policy. And it is just your interpretation - I interpret it differently. To use your example, Writing "Alyson Hannigan sextape" without reliable sourcing would violate BLP, blatantly. I would disagree - it is not blatant or obvious that it does violate the BLP in this case, as I have discussed above (but which you've declined to directly comment on - exactly who's skirting issues?). I mean, how can we possibly discuss the validity of an entry if you can't mention any names, and someone just decides to wipe any mentions before a valid discussion can take place ? The Yeti 02:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Admins do not need to post a heads-up when correcting gross violations of WP policy. Sucks, but there you have it. Probably a better use of everyone's time here would be in tracking down news references on the sex tapes in question, rather than debating Mr. Darcy's clearly in-policy actions. Ford MF 01:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Even admins are not infallible or beyond reproach. They need to argue the point, not duck it like a jobsworth by saying a 'rule is a rule'. What is at question here is whether there is actually a gross violation of the rules just by saying a celebs name, even when stating the tape is fake. And if you can't even mention names, who is going to go look for references if they don't know who to look for ? PS I've moved the Mimi reference below as its a different issue, and comes into the definition debate The Yeti 02:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Mr Darcy, with regards to your personal message saying I have made a personal attacks on you, please advise where ? I have (along with others) disputed your interpretation of the policy, asked for elaborations on your POV, asked you to answered the points I raised, and made some general comments on the powers of admins. I have made no comment on you, your intelligence, or anything else deemed as personal. Go read the examples in the WP:NPA. Making a reference to blocking me is not fairplay in this context. The Yeti 03:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Really no wiggle room here, trust me. Speaking as someone who was once banned indefinitely (I was innocent!) by Wikipedia's chief legal counsel because of this very issue, I can tell you WP:BIO is taken pretty seriously around these parts. Ford MF 04:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Celebrities? Really?

I'm going to delete the entries we have here for videos in which none of the participants have their own wiki page. Some of the people even with wiki pages now strain the definition of "celebrity", and I think those without really have to go, in the interests of keeping this article reasonable and readable. Ford MF 02:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a great plan. BTW, great work on this page - let me know if I can help with the refs. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bjork and what constitutes a suitable entry here

I just removed the entry for Bjork on the grounds that it seemed she had produced the content deliberately. We should probably limit the entry to things that have some patina of illegitimacy. This would exclude legitimate (if misguided) career acts like the early pornos of Sylvester Stallone and Spalding Gray. If someone in porn (as a vocation or a day-tripper) becomes non-porn famous, that doesn't mean that their earlier porn is automatically a "celebrity sex tape". Ford MF 22:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

PS The Yeti, whose content I just removed, I hope I didn't give offense. I've just got on a clean-up kick with this article. Ford MF 22:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, as usual. I'd like to see a high standard on this page; it's a good question whether fakes/false allegations even belong here, although I suppose having them here with sourced rebuttals means they won't be repeatedly inserted by new editors. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree we should limit this page to vaguely illegitimate tapes- my personal feeling is that as long as one of the persons involved is a "Celebrity" (best known for non-porn work) and engaged in sex acts, then the tape should be listed here, regardless of whether or not it was deliberately made or released. --Commander Zulu 22:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Two thoughts. One, I think that in the common vernacular, "sex tape" connotes a tape of private activities, no? Appearing in Shortbus wouldn't count, for example. Nor would Bjork making a video. Two, I don't object to including tapes deliberately made or released per se, as I'm sure that some of the "leaked" tapes were leaked deliberately (to get publicity, save a career, make money, etc.). Bill Simmons often jokes about some female celeb needing to "leak a sex tape" to revive her career. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I am mostly concerned with adhering to the definition of "celebrity sex tape" as it appears in this article, namely: "bootleg distribution and made available to an audience for which it was not supposedly intended."
As for your objections, Commander Zulu, I wonder where you would put Brown Bunny, with its graphic scene of Chloë Sevigny blowing Vincent Gallo. These are both celebrities, both pretty undeniably engaged in sex acts, yet I think we can all agree that a release like Brown Bunny is emphatically not a "celebrity sex tape". Same thing goes for pretty much anything on the list of mainstream films with unsimulated sex. While I agree with you that the criteria of "illegitimacy" and "bootleg distribution" are kinda iffy (particularly when one suspects that certain of these "accidents" were actually pretty deliberate to prop up a sagging career), but I don't know what else you would go by to distinguish the tapes on this page and, say, Pink FlamingosFord MF 23:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
An interesting point, and one I hadn't fully taken into account. Still, adding an addendum that the film must not have been commercially made should take care of the major stumbling block there. It's going to be tough criteria to define, though, I agree. --Commander Zulu 00:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that, although the Bjork video was deliberately done for a music video, the extracts used were not professionally filmed (ie) they were done by handheld camera by Bjork & her partner alone in private in an amateur fashion. Therefore I believe it is a 'legitimate' sextape. It is not a porn film, does not involve porn actors, and involves (non-porn) celebrities. It is also beyond dispute (ie) not a 'rumour'. This is not like Shortbus, which was a professional film with sex as part of its focus/plot, with studio backing, and filmed by professional cameramen/women. Bjork's film was not a scene that was 'faked', 'set-up', or 'acted'. Question - if this scene had somehow made its way into the public domain without the computer distortion, would it then be a sextape ? As this would obviously not be its intended method of distribution.

On a wider note, I do not see who said or why the title 'celebrity sex tapes' by default excludes stuff that has been deliberately filmed and released. Who defined it as such ? And why such a restriction ? Why must a tape be 'iffy' in origin to appear on the list ? I think a film just being 'amateur' in origin would be a good starting definition. I therefore feel it is in this case legitimate to have it in the list.

PS Ford MF, although I do think that you are in the 'wrong' :) in this case, I do appreciate that you have started a talk and given reasonable arguments to back your POV. I hope we can hammer out a suitable definition. The Yeti 03:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This is something we can discuss - a definition would be good. At this point, I'd be opposed to including content created for normal, commercial release, such as mainstream films, music videos, etc. "Sex tape" always connoted (to me, at least) the sense that at least one of the people on the tape didn't want or expect the tape to become public - some sort of scandal, albeit sometimes contrived (coughDustin Diamondcough). Thoughts? | Mr. Darcy talk 04:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah, but that's just a personal opinion. In this Bjork case, the sex portion in the video is an amateur film inserted into a 'commercial' release. What think others of a definition ? The Yeti 19:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The Yeti, I suppose re: the Bjork video, I have two questions: 1) is the sex stuff available on P2P and similar sites, or is watching her video the only way to see it? 2) Is there an explicit uncensored version of the video, or is it just a digitally distorted clip of two people flailing at one another and Bjork saying "Trust me, we're really having sex there"? Because if it's that distorted, I think it's basically the digital equivalent of two celebrities under a blanket doing it. I'm not sure that would qualify either. Actual pornographic content seems to me to be the first qualification of any CST.
Man, defining this stuff is going to be a royal pain. Ford MF 08:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Howdy. In answer to your questions, i) the video is easily available, from Bjork's official site [1], and the video creators' site [2], not to mention YouTube. ii) an undistorted version is not as far as I know available (damn). However, if you watch the video (the first minute or so), although it is distorted, you can make out oral & penetrative sex. Although the scenes are short, the length shouldn't be an issue in a definition. See also the Wiki entry Pagan Poetry and the following on the video's making [3]. The Yeti 19:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with you there, and perhaps add that a CST should probably be considered "Amateur"- ie, not a professional, paid production. That would exclude content created for normal/commercial release, but still cover content that may have been deliberately made or released (as MrDarcy suggsts) as part of a scandal, real or otherwise. --Commander Zulu 04:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mimi McP and other relatives of celebrities

About Mimi... I'm not sure relatives of celebrities count as celebrities in their own right. What did she ever do besides get born a couple years after someone who turned out to be famous? Again, I think if a person doesn't have a wiki entry, they shouldn't be on this list. Ford MF 01:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Possibly true, though it could be argued that it is a celebrity sextape just because its well known as one in the wide world. I don't think we can decide it isn't if most other references say it is. The Yeti 02:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

A new 'celeb'[4]

[edit] A Definition

OK, reading the above, I discern a possible direction on a possible definition of Celebrity Sex Tapes :

  1. the film in question was filmed by the participants themselves, and not with non-involved other persons
  2. the film was made using non-professional equipment and lighting
  3. the film clearly shows intimate sexual acts
  4. the persons involved (or rumoured to be involved) are considered celebrities by dint of appearing in or on legitimate mass media outlets.
  5. relatives may be considered a celebrity in this context if multiple mass media outlets have commented on the film (ie) needing 3 or more references
  6. references to be cited

Para 1: So, where would that leave John Leslie + Abi Titmass + other girl ? - JL didn't actively partake, I believe. However, it would be fair to say he was an 'involved' party, as being a voyeur is what got his rocks off (as opposed to a bored cameraman at another porn shoot).

Para 2: Excludes most films made for commercial release.

Para 3: Duh

Para 4: Sorts out 'if they're included in Wiki' point. Also mass media would help define what a celebrity is. Rumoured should be included (as well as fake/fraud) because the mass media are going to go down this route too.

Para 5: should sort out some of the more obscure relatives, and again leave the defintion of a celebrity to the mass media, but such that it would be commented a lot of times by them.

Para 6: legal BS covering

Above would allow Mimi McP, Abi Titmuss, & Bjork (once references found) but exclude Shortbus, Brown Bunny, Sly Stallone, etc. It also ignores whether the film was intended or not for release (to boost careers, etc). It should be pointed out Abi Titmuss wasn't a celebrity at the time (I think), but became one, by dint of being JL's girlfriend and the film, now with TV shows, etc.

My only problem now is the fact that I've seen (supposedly) Cameron Diaz in a film that she really would not want mass released nowadays, but is definitely explicit, but also filmed with a professional cameraman. Should count, but does not fit the above. I'm not talking of that dull topless 'bondage' film rubbish either.

The Yeti 00:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

JL is "involved" in the Abi Titmuss tape- there are, I beleive, two sequences in which she performs fellatio on someone that (supposedly) is him, including while the other woman performs cunnilingus on her. Incidentally, I found a cite for the Abi Titmuss tape, if you count IMDB as a reliable source: Abi Titmuss: Out For The Lads. Otherwise, I agree with your definitions, The Yeti --Commander Zulu 09:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually on board with most of these definitions, though I think it's worth mentioning P3 probably excludes the Bjork footage, and 5 and 6 (which are no-brainers anyway) would seem to exclude, at the very least, the Mimi McPherson tape (you can barely get news source ghits for her name alone, let alone for any sex tape).
In fact, the only criterion I don't think is necessary is P1, since having a third person there filming (and not sexually participating) isn't always due to the intervention of a professional cameraman, vis the Kid Rock and Scott Stapp tape, which was filmed by some roadie or something. Ford MF 15:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I second everything FMF said, actually. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Similarly, while Abi Titmuss seems to fulfill all of the "celebrity" requirements, and while "abi titmuss" and "sex tape" brings up a quarter of a million ghits, apparently none of them are from actual, REF'able news sources? Hell. I'd like to include here though (we need some Brit entries!), so I'm going to keep looking. If anyone knows of a good, citation, I'd be elaborately happy to not have to keep paging through hundreds of thousands of ghits. Ford MF 17:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I actually went through a number of searches and couldn't find any mention of the actual tape, even on BBC News - just references to her losing her job. Perhaps someone who knows British tabloids better could help, as I think they're more likely to cover a news story like that one. | Mr. Darcy talk 19:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the John Leslie tape I mentioned was just a example of Para 1. It seems that as JL 'partook' it wasn't the best example. Still, the general principle fits for other tapes. More problematic is Ford MF's example of the Kid Rock/Scott Stapp tape (which I've not seen). Hmmm. But it might let that Diaz tape in (if there were only refs ...)

Regarding using imdb as a source for the Abi Titmuss tape, I'd say that this would be an OK ref, as imdb only lists released films (in this case it also lists a distributor), hence 'officially' acknowledeged as existing & not fraud. Only thing for this tape is it doesn't describe it as sex tape, just adult genre. But as the tape is real and sold in stores, finding a ref shouldn't be too hard. This Guardian [5] article mentions a 'rumoured' sextape at least (so now we can add it!)

P3 may or may not exclude Bjork - have you watched it ? Any others here looked at it ? And if there aren't enough possible refs for Mimi McP, then I guess she don't count. In time I'm sure other users may find enough.

The Yeti 07:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I found a reference to the Abi Titmuss tape on the website for The Scotsman newspaper, under "Sex, lies and videotape ... nothing is sacred on the web". I think that well and truly qualifies as a cite from a reputable News Source, especially when combined with the IMDB listing for the film in question. --Commander Zulu 07:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
And I've just found the Sunday Mirror [6], where she admits it all ... and The Sun [7] ... The Yeti 07:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Good work, gents! Ford MF 08:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Sizemore

Why is there no mention of Tom Sizemore's sex tape on here? It made pretty big news and it's been out for quite a while. Herorev 01:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source that verifies the tape's existence, feel free to add it. However, as you can see in the discussion above, all unsourced claims about sex tapes were removed from the article to comply with Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons. | Mr. Darcy talk 01:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Some screen shots can be found in a review here and there's a few videos like the one here. I know Something Awful and YouTube might not have much credibility, but are those references good enough? Herorev 01:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

What about every time I've included a link to XXXTom.com? What more citation do you need than a site selling the damned thing with clips to boot? I really don't understand this Tom Sizemore sanitation on wikipedia. Btw, http://www.thehollywoodnews.com/article/16090506.php

[edit] Keeley Hazell

I've tried to add Page 3 Idol 2004 Keeley Hazell to the list of KNOWN tapes, but it keeps being removed. Justify your actions admin. Here is my evidence [8] now where is yours?

It doesn't say anything about it being a tape involving sexual activity, though- just "A private tape". For all your cite says, it could just as easily be a home movie of her dressed up as Jar-Jar Binks and having a pretend lightsabre battle with her brother. We all know the "Private Video" in question is obviously a sex tape of some kind, but you'll need to find a reputable cite to that effect. Also, I don't think Page 3 girls really count as "Celebrities" outside The Sun's readership- they're certainly not internationally known. The woman in question doesn't even have a Wikipedia article on her, for example. --Commander Zulu 02:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Uh, actually she does have an article and if you paid attention to my posts, you would come to the same conclusion. try [9] or [(unreliable source - do not use) www.postchronicle.com/news/original/article_21259150.shtml] It's sure making news on both sides of the Atlantic considering shes not a 'celebrity'. I verified it myself by watching the video in question. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.77.99.226 (talk) 02:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

I removed it twice because you didn't put a source in. Instead of coming here and copping an attitude, try using sources the next time you want to add content to an article. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
This "event" hasn't been noted anywhere in the gossip columns/entertainment news sections in Australia, AFAIK. Not that "celebrity status in Australia" is a defining requirement for inclusion here, but it might be worth asking whether or not someone can be considered a "Celebrity" simply by virtue of appearance on a reality TV show or being voted "Page 3 Idol". --Commander Zulu 05:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Well I guess she's a 'celebrity'. She may not be much of one, but to some page 3 readers (not I) she's the bee's knees. So I guess she counts The Yeti 23:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page title

Any objection to a move of this page to List of celebrity sex tapes? Because that's what it really is - it's not an article on what a "celebrity sex tape" is. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Weeellll...not an objection per se, I'm just thinking out loud, since I think it could very well be moved... would you split the article? Since I think it'd be weird if there was a list of celebrity sex tapes, but no actual article for CST. On the other hand, I'm not entirely sure I think the subject justifies two separate articles. Not as it stands now. I mean, clearly the content everyone wants to tinker with is the listy stuff, but maybe the actual "what a sex tape is" part in the beginning could use some expansion?
I guess mostly what I mean is I'm completely ambivalent about a move. I'm just wondering what you would think about alternatives other than just a straight move of the article in its entirety. Ford MF 04:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
What I struggle with is how we could ever get a properly sourced definition/description of a "celebrity sex tape." We've had trouble just among the four of us in this discussion getting to an agreement on what the term means. But if someone can find a legitimate source ... well, I'm not even sure where to tell that person to begin. Anyway, I was leaning towards redirecting this article to "List of ...," but we could split it, leave a stub paragraph here, then have a See Also section that points to the list. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I support the move; this article is a list. Strobilus (talk) 23:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RobOnt.net

This chap has a whole load of listed sex tapes [10], and 'discussions' on their real/fake status. Is he a) a valid cite ref ? b) clean enough to link to for Wikipedia (as some refs already do)? I know some of his list cite Wiki as a ref (so its kinda circular), but there are some links of his own, plus usually the video itself The Yeti 23:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a blog, so under WP:RS, it's not usable as a source. I admit he looks like he's done some homework, but them's the rules. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BENZINO

why was the benzino sex tape removed from the list, it just leaked and its all overt..... GOOGLE it if u dont belive me!!!!!!!

It wasn't properly sourced, and therefore didn't comply with WP:BLP. | Mr. Darcy talk 19:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Is http://www.bossip.com/?s=benzino+sex+tape good enough? It has a link to ...krunktastic (or something) which directs back to bossip and another site (i couldn't get to load) Tydamann (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] history/overview of sex tapes as a social phenomenon

I strongly disagree with the recent reversion by Yamla to the edits on the content of the Celebrity sex tape page.

The edited part discussed the social phenomonen of sex tapes, and the growing popularity. Without the information provided, the user has no idea why these sex tapes are important, nor that they have become remarkably more prevalent in the last 10 years.

Yes, some of this is based on the perception of the writer, and not attributable to a reliable source, but, by comparison, what is the reliable source for the definition of a celebrity sex tape.

The text that was contributed adds background information to the topic, and, helps turn a bland definition of something into a description of something greater - a social phenomenon with a real tipping point and change in socal mores. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.109.248.77 (talk) 04:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Sibel Kekilli

What about stars who became famous only after the release of their sex tape (as opposed to Paris Hilton, who was already famous before the release of ! Night in Paris).

This is the case with Sibel_Kekilli, who participated/starred in a sex tape at the beginning of her career (i.e. as an unknown and not-yet-famous actor). After she became famous for starring in Head-On, the German tabloid Bild revealed in tabloid manner that she had previously starred in several pornographic movies which were soon reissued in local (read: German) adult video stores/adult video rental places.

But may be mentioning every not so famous famous (in the English speaking world anyway) person is not what the English Wikipedia is about...so I put my observation here.--84.145.222.231 17:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rumored, fraudulent, &c.

I replaced most of this section. Some of it was clearly cruft (imaginary Britney Spears tape) and some of it badly cited (that Serbian chick, whassername), and it was better deleted in the first place. But the rest of it has a place here, I believe. Certainly it's silly to delete Zahra Amir Ebrahimi as a violation of WP:BLP when there's an entire article, personally vetted by Jimbo Wales himself, devoted to the subject. And by "personally vetted", I mean he almost booted me for writing it, but a safe compromise version was accomplished and I don't think this tiny summary violates that.

Also WP:BLP only applies to LIVING PERSONS. Joan Crawford, Marilyn Monroe and Chuck Connors are all dead. And it's kind of important to have these most persistent rumors listed as they are historically important in the context of this article. Anyway what remains is all well cited from reputable sources, so I don't think there should be any more trouble with the section. Ford MF 15:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the Streisand rumour. On reading the entire article identified as the source, there is no mention whatsoever of a porno tape, let alone one of someone resembling Streisand. Risker 19:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fred Durst

There is (arguably) a 3-minute video file of Fred Durst , lead singer of Limp Bizkit , with an un-named female sex partner , available on the internet . It is prominently watermarked "T.Mobile.Terrorists" and widely distributed .

I have seen the file . It is a carefully made teaser , edited with intercut views from a (likely) longer video , with selected music dubbing over the original audio ...

Even though the existence of a tape has been "known" since February 2005 (it originated in 2003) , Wikipedia is silent on its existence both here , and in the Fred Durst biography page . I believe that there is sufficient public and reliable sourcing now for this silence to end ...

The celebrity gossip site Smoking Gun , on March 5 2005 , http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0304051durst1.html

posted photocopy images of an application for a temporary restraining order ...

listing Gawker Media and additional defendants , 
and asserting (from a deposition by plaintiff Durst) 
"an intimate bedroom video" between ... plaintiff and
 his former girlfriend" ; 
"in or about 2003 , plaintiff , with his girlfriend's
 knowlege and consent , recorded by digital video his
 girfriend and him[self] engaged in various explicit
 sexual and intimate relations together . Plaintiff 
 is readily identifiable on the video ... "

Additionally , we have these "mainstream" media reports http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1497523/20050225/limp_bizkit.jhtml http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1497823/20050307/limp_bizkit.jhtml

which discuss Durst's legal battle concerning the distribution of the tape and screen-capture images made from it .

Celebrity and "porn" Blogs , such as (for example) http://www.whitecheech.com/index.php/archives/2005/03/01/more-fred-durst-news/

have speculated on who Durst's partner is , but I understand that Wikipedia does not consider such sources reliable . Even

http://www.kpnt.com/MusicNews/Display.aspx?ID=40587

(which I believe has chosen the "wrong" female) is probably not "reliable enough" for use by Wikipedia .

Therefore , I will understand if the female partner is only referred to in our Wikipedia articles as "his former girlfriend" . However , I do not understand how Wikipedia can continue to ignore the existence of this material , and avoid reference to it both in the main page here , and in the Durst biography page .

Durst is entitled to prevent others from distributing or profiting from his private tape , but he is not entitled to prevent us from discussing its existence .

Please comment ... Mmw220 19:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you've sufficiently backed up your argument - go add it (and the references). The Yeti 03:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I've seen the tape too and was wondering why it wasn't here... who removed it? RedAugust 03:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mimi McPherson & the Daily Telegraph as a source

I removed Mimi again because of the lack of a reliable citation. Her entry on the list was sourced to this article by the Australian Daily Telegraph. Which is apparently a super-sucky paper because their writers cut and paste Wiki articles and then publish them.

The first Wiki-rip-off I noticed was: "Actor Rob Lowe almost destroyed his own career when, in the 1980s, he taped himself having sex with two young girls, one of whom turned out to be underage." Largely because it's what appears in the Wiki article now, and I'm the one who initially wrote it, on January 2, right after the first really big purge of unsourced entries on this list, three months before the Telegraph published its article. The Bob Crane and Kim Kardashian mentions I think are also clearly cut and pasted from this article.

So if our source is clearly and obviously using Wikipedia, using this same article, as its source, well, that kind of cyclical citation just isn't acceptable. Particularly on a dicey WP:BLP article like this one. I can't find a diff of the old Mimi McPherson mention, but I don't think it's unreasonable to think the Telegraph writer might have gotten their scoop on McPherson from us in the first place (whether or not the text is actually similar). Since the rest of the article should have been tagged "Courtesy of Wikipedia" anyway.

Therefore, long-windedly, I have removed the McPherson entry on the list once more, until an actual reputable news source can be produced. Ford MF 17:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

You may well be correct in your assumptions about the Telegraph's sources; however, pointing out this circular referencing does not make the existence of the tape less factual. That the tape exists can not be denied. It has been posted many times on Usenet and is readily available on the Internet. Michael Bednarek 13:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Pointing out that the source sucks makes it less worthy of inclusion, was what I was getting at. "Factual" isn't a Wikipedia guideline. Verifiability and reliable sources are. Ford MF 14:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Whether Wikipedia has guidelines on facts is neither here nor there; an encyclopedia deals in facts. We don't need sources that the Sydney Harbour Bridge exists - it's there for everyone to see; so is the Mimi Macpherson tape.
I don't really care whether her tape is included in this list or not (the truth is out there); I just find the attitude of some of Wikipedia's guardians rather baffling. EOD Michael Bednarek 10:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
You probably haven't read very carefully through Wikipedia's guidelines then. Ford MF 20:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Also it's great that you have a link to her porn pictures, or a link to fuzzy, color saturated pictures of a woman who may or may not be Mimi McP (I have no idea who she is, so I'm not one to judge), but unless there's a reliable source, that's just WP:OR and a WP:BLP violation. Ford MF 14:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Katie Price

The list is missing a refernce to the widely-circulated Katie Price sex tape. Problem is the only on-line sources that seem to be available now are porn sites and blogs with copyvio versions of the tape in question. The fact the tape exists is not in dispute; the problem is (and I think this is the same problem facing the confirmed McPherson tape mentioned above) is Wiki's prohibition against posting porn site links. For example, there is a site called celebritymoviearchive that has clips from both tapes in question, but we can't post the actual link. It's a challenge faced by this topic, I guess. 23skidoo 16:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed sentence from lead with false cite

The lead used to say:

Some tapes, however, are distributed with the willing participation of the involved parties.

With a citation/footnote that read:

"Secrets and Thighs: A history of celebrity sex tapes, real and fake, from Joan Crawford to Paris Hilton"

Problem is, that article absolutely does not support that statement. There's nothing in there proving that any celebrities have distributed such tapes willingly. Even if it had made that claim, per WP:NPOV and other policies, the best the sentence could read is "so and so with some publication argues that some tapes are distributed with the willing participation [etc.]"

I didn't even see in there anything making the argument that some celebs willingly did so, so even that statement wouldn't be supported. The person who put that there should really read up on policy for how cituations work, or use some common sense. DreamGuy 12:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted your final edit "clarification" because of WP:WEASEL concerns. If the NYT states something as factual, it needs no prefacing with stuff like "according to the New York Times" or "the New York Times claims", unless the subject has disputed it somewhere, which, so far as I can tell, is not the case. We can just make the statement, ref the statement, and be done with it. The actual text of the article reads as follows:

In late 2004 a former pro wrestling star named Chyna Doll and her husband actually approached Red Light District to distribute their amateur sex tape. More than 100,000 copies have sold, the company says, with its stars sharing the profits.

Which is pretty unambiguous, and would also seem to support the removed contention that at least some celebrity sex tapes are released with their subjects' participation or knowledge.
When I initially did the grunt work of ref'ing the article, I don't particularly remember any other tape being stated to have been sold by its creators, although I do remember a lot of article writers voicing suspicions--general ones--about the phenomenon in general. I'll try to dig up something after I go to work. Ford MF 13:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Parisdvd2.jpg

Image:Parisdvd2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ben Affleck

I have seen a video with Ben Affleck, supposidy before he was famous, to make a little money. It shows him masturbating on a couch. Can I add this? And the only links that I can find, are porn sites... Bryse 04:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

In light of the significant WP:BLP issues inherent with this article, you need solid reliable sources for that kind of addition. I doubt a porn site will be sufficiently reliable.--Kubigula (talk) 04:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hoang Thuy Linh

I don't think the following recently-added entry on the list belongs here:

A sex clip of Vietnamese teen actress and singer Hoang Thuy Linh, famous for the leading role Yellowbird in the Vietnamese television show the Yellow Bird's diary, and her boyfriend was distributed over the internet in October, 2007. The Yellow Bird's diary was seen as an educational show for Vietnamese teens. The 16-minute long sex clip has drawn national attention in Vietnam shortly after it was released.[23] See also Vietnamese "The Yellow Bird" sex clip scandal

I don't think this sufficiently fulfills the "celebrity" part of the equation. On the Vietnamese Wiki perhaps, but not here. The participant doesn't even have a Wikipedia article, and the supposed scandal article is redlinked as well. The article for the TV show this girl is from was created by User:Jack brian (who has only logged edits relating to this sex tape item) after the information was added to this article by an anon IP whom I'm guessing was also jack brian. And that article basically only consists of this one gossip item as well. Ford MF 14:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


The following passage does not belong in this article; it is thinly-veiled propaganda, possibly from the state media in Vietnam:

It shocked all Vietnamese teenagers and also adults, mainly because the character Oriolus is the role-model of millions of teenage fans and against Vietnamese tradition. Reactions varied after the sex clip was widely circulated on the internet. While some wanted to offer sympathy, the majority of Vietnamese population and netizens condemned the act of Thuy Linh as ribald and inappropriate. [23] After that, VTV hosted a talk that officially announced an end to the show. [24] [25] However the speech made by Thuy Linh and the show director, as well as comments by MC and other actors/actresses were considered insincere and acted-up. The talk show was also considered a preposterous move of VTV to defend the decadent private lifestyle of Thuy Linh and to appease the audience.[26] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.100.212.172 (talk) 18:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hoang Thuy Linh

I am moving this section to the Talk Page because its verifiability is questionable. All of the reference sources are in Vietnamese, so their content and reliability cannot be confirmed by the intended readers of this encyclopedia, i.e., those who read English. Further, the actress herself is not the subject of a Wikipedia article. The section is also excessively long and somewhat POV. Risker 03:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

  • A sex clip of Vietnamese teen actress and singer Hoang Thuy Linh, famous for the leading role Yellowbird in the Vietnamese television show The Yellow Bird's diary, and her ex-boyfriend was distributed on several Internet websites and online communities in mid-October 2007. The show was as an educational show for Vietnamese teens. The 16-minute long sex clip has drawn national attention in Vietnam shortly after it was released. It shocked all Vietnamese teenagers and also adults, mainly because the character Oriolus is the role-model of millions of teenage fans and against Vietnamese tradition. Reactions varied after the sex clip was widely circulated on the internet. While some wanted to offer sympathy, the majority of Vietnamese population and netizens condemned the act of Thuy Linh as ribald and inappropriate. [1] After that, VTV hosted a talk that officially announced an end to the show. [2] [3] However the speech made by Thuy Linh and the show director, as well as comments by MC and other actors/actresses were considered insincere and acted-up. The talk show was also considered a preposterous move of VTV to defend the decadent private lifestyle of Thuy Linh and to appease the audience.[4]

We should be cautious about sources in other languages to prevent vandalism, but sometimes news are in the other languages only. So we should be very cautious to save or not. This time there are already AP articles about it yesterday or today. Or may we wait some time until the related person to emotional overcome it?Chengm153 07:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] clinical discussion of contents of sex tape

Going into a clinical discussion of the activities portrayed on a private sex tape never intended for public release (as in the examples of the Jayne Kennedy and Chuck Berry listings) appears to go against Wikipedia policy on BLP, which states (under Presumption in favor of privacy):

"An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, and as such it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. BLPs must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy." 128.218.20.69 (talk) 09:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

"Claims" are not the same as "factual evidence", in which sex tapes are included I think. Regard for the subject's privacy must be counterbalanced with the fact that these people of their own volition visually documented their participation in sex acts. Reprinting claims that an actor is gay is generally a BLP violation; printing the documented fact that an actor has engaged in gay sex on a widely distributed video tape is not. Ford MF (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Politician = Celebrity?

Isn't celebrity is those entertainer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.48.109.110 (talk) 03:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a flexible definition, I think. I'm pretty sure people would agree John F. Kennedy Jr. was a celebrity (by common consent), though he was neither a politician nor an entertainer. People were merely interested in him, which must be the primary qualification for celebrity I think. Ford MF (talk) 16:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rumoured sex tapes

Textbook violation of [11] and thus must be removed per BLP. Sceptre (talk) 14:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

1) WE perhaps need to remove "rumored" from the section heading to clarify what it really is, but virtually all the entries there exist to debunk persistent rumors of the existence of sex tapes. If anything, as a whole they exonerate the subjects of participation. Readers of the New York Post will probably persist under the false impression that a Marilyn Monroe sex tape does in fact exist. Thank god for wikipedia for clearing things up. And 2) Not all of the subjects listed there are alive, and therefore are not covered by BLP in the first place. Ford MF (talk) 07:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I removed the template which warned against "biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial claims". I went through all the entries, and the only one that didn't cite a reputable source was the Lindsay Lohan entry, which I took the liberty of removing. Ford MF (talk) 00:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BLP Watch

Please stop removing the BLPWatch template. I'm assuming people removing it don't even know what its function is. Please see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/BLPWatch. This article contains information which should adhere to our BLP guidelines, and the template helps ensure it does. Thanks. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring

Since I'm getting more and more eager to put this edit warring to rest, I've submitted a report on the BLP noticeboard. I'd like some eyes external to this dispute to look the thing over. Certainly no one else seems to think this is as textbook a violation as User:Spectre. Ford MF (talk) 01:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Per WP:BLP

Per WP:BLP "Editors should avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. When less-than-reliable publications print material they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases. Look out for these. If the original publication doesn't believe its own story, why should we?"

It is in no may acceptable to be posting information which the source itself acknowledges as dubious when dealing with living people. It is grossly inappropriate to say "So in so celebrity may have had sex on tape, or perhaps it is just a rumor". We are an encyclopedia, not a gossip rag. I ask the the person who returned the rumor section not to return it again. (1 == 2)Until 17:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, first of all, some of the subjects of the section you deleted are dead, so BLP doesn't apply in the first place. Secondly, did you actually read what you pasted? The sources are reliable (they include Der Spiegel, The Village Voice and Time). The material isn't being presented as true, quite the contrary. The information is definitely relevant: many sources have written about the alleged Marilyn Monroe film, and Streisand herself has talked about the sex tape that is wrongly said to include her. You have no legit argument for deleting this stuff. —Chowbok ☠ 17:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Sorry I don't follow. If the source claims it is really a sex tape, not just a rumor then it should not be in the rumor section. If the source says it is not a celebrity sex tape then it does not belong here at all as it is not relevant. If the source says that it may be a sex tape, but they are not sure(ie use weasel words), then BLP is clear we should not use it.

While some of the people are no longer alive, the issues with relevance and weasel words remains. The standards of WP:Verifiability demand the same, it just has a different level of enforcement. That is to say, BLP removals are exempt from 3RR, while regular verifiability violations are not.

In the end WP:NOT is really the reason we should not have that section. We are not a rumor mill. The topic of this article is celebrity sex tapes, I fail to see how non-celebrity sex tapes that were rumored to be such makes an on-topic addition.

Muddling fact and fiction together in such a way is a disservice to our readers. (1 == 2)Until 17:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not the subjects are alive or dead, I quite agree that we should not be including any information into the encyclopedia when the reference source itself indicates that they have not been able to confirm the information, as in the case of Marilyn Monroe. Risker (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The Monroe entry does confirm it. As a hoax. See also: Marilyn Monroe. Ford MF (talk) 18:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
If enough people believe that a sex tape exists so that there are multiple, reliable sources going to the trouble of debunking it, then it most definitely is relevant and on topic. A "rumor mill" generates rumors; hence the "mill" part. If we're simply accurately repeating what reliable sources have said on the subject, that doesn't make us a "rumor mill". And we're not "muddling" fact and fiction; the fact that something does not exist is just as much a fact as that something does exist. There's no fiction in this article, or in the section you deleted.—Chowbok ☠ 18:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Page protected

Due to edit warring, this page has been fully protected, in accordance with the Protection Policy. The page will remain fully protected until May 26, or until the problem(s) have been addressed. I invite the involved users to discuss the article on this talk page, and reach a consensus for disputed information. Thanks, Rjd0060 (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rumored sex tapes

Okay, let's take a minute here to go through these entries, since everyone seems to just see the section name and say "RUMORED SEX TAPES? BLP violation!" without actually reading the section:

  • Marilyn Monroe is alleged to have appeared in a 15-minute long, silent, black and white, 16 mm film performing oral sex on an unknown man. In 2008, a copy was reportedly sold to a New York businessman for $1.5 million,[26] though both the claims that the film had been sold and its very existence have been disputed. [27] Rather than disputed, this should be changed to reflect the fact that nearly everyone considers this a hoax, despite being uncritically reported by Reuters as genuine. See the consensus version hammered out at Marilyn Monroe.
  • A pornographic clip featuring a woman who bears a resemblance to Barbra Streisand has been distributed for many years.[25] It was first distributed by Al Goldstein on his 1970s TV series Midnight Blue.[28] In an 1977 interview with Playboy, Streisand stated that the woman in the film is not her and she had actually viewed a copy of the film out of curiosity.[29] Clip with a history long enough to have found its way into numerous reliable print sources. Our entry here CLEARLY describes it as false.
  • A fraudulent sex tape of an O.J. Simpson look-alike and two prostitutes was distributed over the internet in June 2006. Simpson's lawyer acknowledged that Simpson does appear fully clothed in the tape but that the man engaged in sex acts with the same women is not him. The tape's distributor, however, maintains that the man in the tape is, in fact, Simpson.[30] Again, despite a commercial distributor claiming this is genuine, our entry here debunks it as fraudulent.
  • Zahra Amir Ebrahimi is one of the best-known actresses in Iran. In 2006, a 20-minute sex tape from 2004 hit the Internet starring Ebrahimi's then-fiance and a woman bearing a resemblance to Ebrahimi. Ebrahimi has denied that the girl is her and has suggested the possibility of a look-alike being used by her ex-fiance to hurt her career.[31] Okay, maybe a little more complicated, as it's an open secret that it is in fact Ebrahimi in that video. But it's Iran, so being convicted of that offense could have led her to be whipped 99 times. But MASSIVELY notable (it's the only tape on the list that initiated a Parliamentary vote). Fuller explanation in its own article, Iranian sex tape scandal.
  • During her life there were persistent rumors that Joan Crawford acted in several pornographic films early in her career, including some with lesbian content. The films (if they ever existed) are supposed to have been all destroyed upon her entry into Hollywood as a legitimate actress.[5] (Dead; community has assessed BLP as not applying to those no longer living.)
  • Popular '50s and '60s television actor Chuck Connors, and star of such series as The Rifleman and Branded, was rumored to have appeared in a hardcore gay film short, although the man in the film is most likely an unidentified look-alike.[32] Ditto, and anyway we debunk the authenticity of this old chestnut.
  • A man whose voice bears a strong resemblance to that of pioneering rock singer and guitarist Chuck Berry is heard on a tape commercially sold under the title "Chuck Berry's Home Movies" (although the man's face cannot be seen).[5]
  • Meg White, the drummer for band the White Stripes, has stated, through a spokesperson for the group, that a clip circulating the Internet rumored to be a sex tape of her is not hers.[33] These last two I would be fine seeing go. They're sourced, but one is sourced as a "maybe", and the other debunked by an only quasi WP:RS

So where, exactly, is this supposed BLP harm going on here? As Chowbok points out above, explaining persistent rumors (printed in major newsmedia, over periods of decades in some cases) as UNTRUE is as important as reporting what IS true. Ford MF (talk) 18:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Rumored"

The problem here is the word "rumored," as it implies a degree of scandal & dirt that the actual article doesn't contain. "Unconfirmed" isn't better, especially since some of them are pretty well & truly debunked. Still, I think semantics is a big killer on this point. --mordicai. (talk) 20:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

"Hoaxes"? "Claims"? Ford MF (talk) 20:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Mordicai that "rumored" is problematic. I suggest simply sticking with "disputed and fraudulent". A discussion of the disputed and fraudulent videos would properly belong in a well developed and comprehensive article on celebrity sex videos.--Kubigula (talk) 04:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
That sounds better to me. Ford MF (talk) 11:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Sounds to me like having a section in the Apple article called "People who have been said to eat apples but have not". It does not seem on-topic to me. The topic is "Celebrity sex tape", not "Who may or may not have been in a sex tape". (1 == 2)Until 13:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
A disingenuous example, since no one's ever been covered in multiple major media sources as maybe eating apples and then taken the time in the same sources to refute the assertion. The Ebrahimi entry, e.g., has citations from BBC, Der Spiegel, the Daily Mail, the Guardian UK, Reuters and CNN. Ford MF (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Not disingenuous, rather sincere. I honestly think we are getting way off topic with this. Something being covered in sources does not make it more or less on topic, it only justifies the possibility of further related topics.
Okay, you don't like apples and oranges. How about the article Judaism having a section called "People thought to be Jews but may not really be". Now the possible religion of celebrities is something that major media outlets cover, but that does not make it on topic. Please assume I am being sincere and not disingenuous. (1 == 2)Until 13:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
You keep coming up with allegations (apple-eating, possible Judaism) about which no one could plausibly ever have to defend themselves. Also, who is ever "rumored" to be Jewish? The putative "disputed and fraudulent" section deals with things that have been widely reported, and just as widely discredited (or denied, in the case of Ebrahimi), the way the Kevin Spacey article deals with the persistent rumors of his homosexuality, or, for that matter, the way the fake tapes are discussed on the Marilyn Monroe page itself, that is to say: neutrally addressed with fine, verifiable, reliable sources. Ford MF (talk) 14:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I think we are getting off-topic in this discussion: arguing about whether the allegations are positive or negative is losing any pretense of objectivity. The allegations are NOTABLE because they receive press coverage. We need to be careful not to insinuate any value judgments, not to imply a position one way or another. I think a better example than apples or ethnicity (seriously close to Godwin-ing out of the debate...) is conspiracy theories. It might be widely debunked in the mainstream, but it is still NOTABLE. --mordicai. (talk) 15:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreeing with Ford et al here. Whether you call it 'rumoured' or not is just semantics, but the core point is that the existence (or not) of the tapes have been published in many reputable and verifiable sources, even if it is to deny or discredit the tapes. That is enough to make it notable, and relevant to the page. The Yeti (talk) 02:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Britney Spears (& others)

Yep, this ol' chestnut - however, there is a reputable source as to the existence of one this time ... http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/showbiznews.html?in_article_id=566985&in_page_id=1773 (right at the bottom). When the page is unblocked, maybe can be added (as a rumour ! :-) ? The Yeti (talk) 03:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Another rumour too http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/showbiznews.html?in_article_id=485400&in_page_id=1773 I guess The Mail On Sunday is reputable ? The Yeti (talk) 03:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
And what about Danielle Lloyd, Sophie Anderton, Jimi Hendrix, and that mysterious royal ... ? [[12]] [[13]] [[14]] [[15]] The Yeti (talk) 03:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
It would not be even remotely appropriate to include a rumor of a Britney Spears sex tape. It would be a serious WP:BLP concern. If the tape is released and its existence confirmed than it would be fine to discuss it, otherwise no way. Personally I think it makes no sense to have a "rumored" section (even for disproved rumors) but we cannot include every "we heard so and so has a sex tape" story reported in tabloid newspapers. Wikipedia is not a rumor mill and our BLP policies are quite strict.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Concur; unfounded tabloid gossip is explicitly out of bounds on Wikipedia, be there ever so many sources saying "People say there may be some ..."  RGTraynor  13:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)