Talk:Haley Paige

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Expansion

We need to have some more data on this porn actress. As it stands right now, it is eligible for being VfD'd. If we can't find anything notable on her, I'll nominate the article for VfD. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 03:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bahá'í Source

Can you give a reference which says that Haley Paige is a Bahá'í. If not I am removing that statement. I couldn't find anything. -- Jeff3000 16:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I found a couple links
Put triple x's and the word porn before talk in the URL (had to do that so wikipedia doesn't stop the link)
in the first article she calls the Bahá'í faith a cult and it caused her to want to porn. The Bahá'í Faith is not a cult, and secondly it advocates strongly against pornagraphy (both acting and viewing). If a Bahá'í were to be involved in pornagraphy he/she would be deemed a Covenant-breaker (similar to excommunication). Thus I think the statement should be removed from the article, or a qualifier statement saying that she is not accepted as a Bahá'í by other Bahá'ís. -- Jeff3000 16:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Given that no one has commented I'm removing the reference. Please talk about it here before putting it back. -- Jeff3000 14:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
It seems like you're removing content because of personal beliefs. She has stated in several interviews that she is Bahá'í. Remove it and I'll keep on reverting it. Please keep this NPOV --Dysepsion 18:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Fine I left it there, but I'm qualifying the statement, because the Bahá'í administration would excommunicate her if she really was a Bahá'í, thus making her NOT a Bahá'í. -- Jeff3000 18:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


I have to rectify above mentioned statements: "If a Bahá'í were to be involved in pornography he/she would be deemed a Covenant-breaker (similar to excommunication)." and "...the Bahá'í administration would excommunicate her if she really was a Bahá'í, thus making her NOT a Baha'i." These statements are not correct.

According to the Baha'i Reference Book "Lights of Guidance" Lights of Guidance on Baha'i Library Online , a Baha'i involved in pornography would not be considered a covenant breaker or excommunicated, although they might be deprived of their voting rights. Only Baha'is who deliberately attack the Faith are considered covenant breakers.

#607 states: "Only actual enemies of the Cause are excommunicated. On the other hand, those who consipicuously disgrace the Faith or refuse to abide by its laws can be deprived, as a punishment, of their voting rights; this is in itself a severe action..." #216 "One who has lost his voting rights is considered a Baha'i but not one in good standing." and #198 "It follows, therefore, that a believer can continue calling himself a Baha'i even though he may cease to be a voting member of the community." Ramioke 17:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] How is the following pertinent to the article?

I removed this simply because it isn't pertinent to the article:

In an interview done she actually confessed that she first had sex with women before she ever kissed a guy.

If anyone disagrees, please feel free to discuss this here on this page. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 03:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Bahá'í Source again

Unicited statement:

"Also she claims she is a practicing member of the Bahá'í Faith, although the teachings of the Bahá'í Faith clearly prohibit sexual relationships that are not between a husband and wife."

I've looked into the claim that she is a Bahá'í and as above the only two refernences (other than Wikipedia mirrors) are those above. The first reference is a forum and the second reference is a blog. Both do not meet Wikipedia's standards for Verifiability and Reliable sources. Quoting: "At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, weblogs (blogs), bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are not acceptable as sources." and "Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources." Because of this I am removing the statement. If you want to bring it back please give a reliable and verifiable source as defined by Wikipedia. -- Jeff3000 16:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The only two references? Have you checked the DVD commentary on all 215 movies she has done? What about any print magazines she may have been interviewed? You've been after this statement for personal reasons, but we should demand citations even-handedly.--Prosfilaes 22:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
If you can find those then I don't mind that the data be in the article, but the burden of proof is one you to find those reliable sources. If it was otherwise then people could make any website, then add info on Wikipedia and then state that it is true, and people should just look harder until they find a reliable source. Of course, that's not the way Wikipedia works. -- Jeff3000 22:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy is very clear on this, please read Verifiability. -- Jeff3000 04:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
What about the other things in the article that aren't cited? If this wasn't so obviously a religious whitewash, I wouldn't have the problem, but you're removing one uncited comment and leaving others, just because the one offends you. I've seen several articles citing reputable blogs and USENET articles.--Prosfilaes 04:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Most of the other things are cited from the imdb and other articles, the fact that she is a Bahá'í is not. I will be removing all uncited things from the article. -- Jeff3000
Also mistakes in verifiablity and reliable sources in another articles does not make it right. Again, I point you to the verifiability and reliable sources pages. -- Jeff3000 04:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Verifiability

I quote the verifiability article here for your convenience

"Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed."

Regarding reliable sources, I quote again "At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, weblogs (blogs), bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are not acceptable as sources." and "Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources." -- Jeff3000 04:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response

I've restored the edits to the last one made by Prosfilaes. Jeff3000, you basically deleted more than half the article. If you're that nit picky about having every sentence having a source, why don't you go to other articles and delete every sentence that doesn't have a citation? Needless to say, it would be millions. When I wrote the bio for this article, my source was from a website that was NOT from a blog or message board and therefore verifiable. It came from a website that has since been deleted. Now that it has been deleted, it's no longer verifiable? Perhaps I should've made a seperate website wherein the verified info was posted. That's one of the problems with Wikipedia. You can quote a reliable website featuring an article, but if that article disappears for whatever reason, does that mean that the particular assertion on the Wiki article is no longer "true"? I do agree with Prosfilaes that because of your bias to the Bahá'í faith you have been seeking to remove any reference of it to this article. You are correct that message boards and blogs do not lie within the context of Wikipedia verifiability. However does that mean that the questioned sentence should be outright removed? Certainly not. At best it is disputed and a "citation needed" tag is placed unless you can substantially argue why no tag is needed. Also, when a citation is needed, it is best to included the "citation needed" note on the article itself rather than hide it from the main article which is what you did. Everyone wants verifiability, however currently what you are doing to this article is citation paranoia and quite frankly disruptive. I believe because of this you should open a dialogue or take it to channels such as Request for Comment. Until then, please leave the article as is. --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 05:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The issue has not been changed. There is no verifiable source indicating she is a Baha'i. Jeff3000 and I are both Baha'is, and we both looked for sources, and among a mixture of blogs and odd sites, there are some indicating she was raised in a Baha'i family, but nothing indicating that she's a self professed Baha'i.
Once again, if you would like to add a note that she's a Baha'i, then the burden of proof rests upon you to provide evidence of it. Cuñado - Talk 08:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn't a dispute tag and or citation tag be more appropriate? That's the way it's been handled in many articles during reverts. An outright removal shows no compromise. I'm not going to revert anything further because this is becoming too burdensome. It seems to me that both of you are using the cloak of Wiki verifiability to uphold your beliefs on Baha'i as if any inclusion were a personal attack on your religion. We would all like our personal affiliations to be presented in a good light, but truth is always the priority. Perhaps I should've asked her outright when I saw her what her religion was, but then again even my word is not verifiable in Wiki under "no original research". Of course verifiability takes precedence over anything else on Wiki and I concede that you need sources but I just find it very disruptive that these reverts are clearly being done because of point of view under the shield of verifiability. --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 08:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
You can say whatever you want about our intentions or normal wiki practices. The worst aspect of wikipedia is its lack of references and the possibility of starting rumors has brought it under fire in the media. If you find a reference, it doesn't present a moral dilemna for me and my beliefs for her to be labelled as a Baha'i. But like you said, establishing the truth is important. Any admin will quickly agree with my deletion of the unverifiable comment. Cuñado - Talk 16:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Many editors on Wiki have a skewed bias to seek ways and add/detract information so that their beliefs are presented in a fitting manner. Practically everyone has been guilty of it, so your intentions and normal wiki practices does have a bearing on this article whether you admit to it or not. Everyone will agree that articles need verifiability without a doubt, but what I see here is a perceived lack of compromise in solving a dispute and that is why I find this disruptive. Her stance as a member of Baha'i was placed as fact by me using a valid website that has since been deleted. Does website deletion equal statement deletion? At least what Prosfilaes did was a compromise in stating that an assertion in the article may or maybe not correct. That is why we have "citation needed" tags or a "disputed" tags. I highly doubt anyone in the media would even criticize an article where citations are needed. It just shows the vulnerability of an article and that the article is still a work in progress. There's no doubt that an admin will agree in verifiability, that's not the point. Bring it to different channels on wiki and it's no contest. But find any admin who refuses to yield to the side of consensus or compromise and then you are correct in out right removing the statement. Until that happens I believe that what you are doing is disruptive by refusing to find middle ground and instead presenting verifiability as a broken record. --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 18:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
A couple points that are true regardless of my personal bias which of course is a factor:
  1. Regarding the use of [citation needed]. From Wikipedia:Citing sources, "This should be used sparingly; Wikipedia has a lot of undercited articles, and inserting many instances of [citation needed] is unlikely to be beneficial."
  2. Regarding uncited material Wikipedia:Citing sources states "Disputed edits can be removed immediately, removed and placed on the talk page for discussion"
  3. Regarding websites that are deleted, I wouldn't consider those reliable sources
  4. I brought up this issue a couple months ago, when I wasn't completely knowlegable about Wikipedia policy. Regardless, since then no references have been brought up. -- Jeff3000 18:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Jeff3000, you're a jerk. I know someone who knew Haley Paige when she was living in San Diego and knew her as a Baha'i. You're just trying to white wash your religion. It should be acknowleged that she was a baha'i at one point. It's not the faith's fault one of their own turned to porn. Trying to hide the truth is shameful. Stop trying to hide the truth! -- Bluemodels
I second that. Jeff3000 even wrote to Cunado19, "Do you really want to put Haley Paige in the Baha'i Individuals category. She's a porn actress, and the web-links where she claims to be a Baha'i indicate that she thinks it is a middle-eastern cult. I would remove it, but the the guy who looks after the page, would put it back if I took it off. I don't think he would mind you taking it off, since you put it on. -- Jeff3000 02:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)" It's quite obvious that you know damn well that she's Bahai. It's completely ridculous, stupid and immature how you would try to hide the truth because it puts negative light on your religion. Grow up. --71.106.159.12 18:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Death

I'm afraid that the news of her death is in fact real. Please see the family's photos of her funeral, which incidently in one of the pictures also verfies her Bahai upbringing. She left the porn industry a while back hence the fact there is no news of her death in print, but I'm sure it will get around. [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.151.36 (talk) 03:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Right now we have no firm evidence that the person in the photo is indeed Haley Paige. It could be a close look-alike who were are seeing in that photo. So for now we'll have to keep the information about Haley's "death" out of the article on the basis of a lack of verifiability from reliable sources. Sorry... Tabercil 04:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it shouldn't be included without reliable sources for now (i.e. an article) but to say that the person is a "close look-alike"? Give me a break. That's ridiculous. There is a picture of the memorial card that confirms it's her with her birth date, name and everything. Either the pictures are authentic or some sick joke, which I doubt the latter considering the site was passed on by family members.

Until we can verify it, it shouldn't be in the article. As a nit pick, the birth date on that memorial card is off by a day according to our article. Also we don't have a birth name, so how do we know that's her? Dismas|(talk) 05:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Enough with the ad nauseum verifiability comments. Just because I'm an anon user don't mistake me for someone who doesn't know Wikipedia protocol. I know full well about adherence to living persons and reporting a death is a serious manner. But that "close look-alike" and now the birth date comment just proves how people are in denial and in my opinion is disrespectful. She was buried at Brentwood, CA on August 30. So let me put this bluntly, I AGREE THAT IT SHOULD BE NOT POSTED WITHOUT VERIFIABILITY, but just open up to the very unfortunate reality that she passed away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.151.36 (talk) 06:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh I agree what you're pointing out indicates that Haley could well be deceased. But at the same time I have to point out the arguments against the evidence you're pointing out. And when we have the verification we do print it; for instance, look at Angela Devi. Tabercil 11:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • This has now been confirmed with the most reliable of sources, the Coroner's Office in Monterey County, CA. Maryam I. Haley died on 8/22/07, and there is an ongoing investigation. Still that doesn't give us link to a cite online. How do we deal with that? Reports will likely appear in the adult video media over the next few days.
Your reference could be the method you received the information from the Coroner's Office. It doesn't need to be a URL, it just has to be independently verifiable. Cputrdoc 20:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It's now been confirmed. Vinh1313 01:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Wonderful! Thank you for your work. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 02:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

minor point, but the date on the page says 8-21, the date above says 8-22. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.23.151 (talk) 03:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

We're relying on the date provided by the AVN article. Vinh1313 18:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing the line, "Sgt. Steve Miller, of the King City Police Department, disclosed that Haley had been murdered" from the article. If you look at the article referenced, Miller wasn't directly quoted:

'Hwang was "implicated" in the death of his girlfriend in King City this summer, according to King City police Sgt. Steve Miller. He would not release the name of the murder victim or other information about the case because the investigation is ongoing, he said.'

The reference to murder victim was written by the reporter and the idea that "Hailey had been murdered" may have been introduced through her irresponsible journalism. According to Gram Ponante, Haley had overdosed with Wang in the room. Vinh1313 02:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Big Bust Models

Why is this girl listed in the "list of big bust models"?

She should be removed from this list........ Msjayhawk 15:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Done. Valrith 22:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)