Talk:John Holmes (actor)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ohio Portal

John Holmes (actor) is part of WikiProject Ohio, which collaborates on Ohio-related subjects 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 current discussions.

This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

[edit] Size Controversy

I am no expert on John Holmes, but come on, he was not 5'2 that much I know. Is this a joke????? Why is he listed as 5'2. People who he seemed to have met claim he was a tall guy. Even if h e was short, come on people 5'2??????????? which joker put that up ????? That shorter than most girls!!!!!!!!!!!! He was usually taller than the girls he was featured with.

Remeber John Holmes is one of the highest grossing performers in the adult industry even today, even after death. The reason for his fame is not that he was handsome, a talented actor, or exibited great technique or athletecism. He is legend because of his large penis which appears even larger when attached to such a lanky man. As a result, there is much money to be made in perpetuating exaggerations of his phallic demensions in order to maintain this income stream. If these clais were defrauded and made too public, the legendary status of John Holmes would deminish considerably (though it would never deminish entirely as 8 3/4" is still very large and he has made a very large catalogue of films).

[edit] Size Controversy

How is making up a site and linking to it a valid contribution???

Relative to the height of his navel, there is no way he is over 9 inches unless his navel is in the same spot as his sternum (and it is obvious that it is not)

Even in the early clips when he gets more erect, the penis still hangs he NEVER got an erection that stood up. That being said, his penis was always approximately the length of his hand (slightly longer). No 6'2" man has hands that are close to 10 inches long. It for sure never went past his navel when he stood upright. It would be impossible for it to be over 9 inches. The fact that he was a very lean man helped as the penis looked longer relative to the width of his leg (when it flopped over the side it looked really long). If you want to prove your point, use a different video as that one does not show the wrist in a relevant manner to compare size (width of wrist is not perpendicular with the penis). I am by not means accusing you of manipulating the film (though I have seen way to many photos of John Holmes and other porn stars, such as Lexington Steele, that have been manipulated), rather a better frame of reference is to be used. Please put up the link to the other webpage page (not bizarremag) that was found that refered to his 8.75" size.

I'm the last guy you have to convince about the tendency of porno stars to greatly exaggerate their penis size (in fact, I'm currently involved in a dispute about another porno star claiming he's got 8.5 inches when he clearly has maybe 7.25 - 7.5"). But to say Holmes' penis was, at its greatest extent, 8.75 inches long is to rob the man of nearly an inch and a half.

Before reverting the figure to "10+ inches" (which seems a lot more realistic to me - having seen tons of "classic" 1960s & 1970s porno, as well as oodles of contemporary stuff), I looked around for web pages addressing the matter of penis size. All but one included only still photographs as "proof," including one of the links "proving" the 8.75" claimI thought the web site I'd made up with video proof was a bombshell!

However, I think some people feel this video was also manipulated digitally. I don't see how, but that doesn't mean it wasn't done (I'm no Spielberg) - I'm not going to link to it here, because apparently that's vandalism. But still, at least go back through the page's history, and check out the website for yourself. It seems to me the video proof on the (non-bizarremag) website is as close to a correct and accurate portrayal of what actually took place before the camera that day/night, and not like some post-digital manipulation.

Just my opinion - take a look for yourself. 68.109.223.137

It seems to me that this is a debate that will never be settled. In my opinion, our current article does a reasonably good job of making it clear that the exact size of his penis is much disputed and always will be. If you're not a regular around here, you're probably not aware that this article is constantly being edited and un-edited precisely because of this issue. There are several of us who keep an eye on it and try to keep it reasonable. --George 03:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bisexual?

Holmes was bisexual, it's very well known and the article should be edited to show this about him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.103.102.92 (talk) 11:33, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Was Holmes actually bisexual? I know he made a couple of gay loops and "The Private Pleasures of John Holmes," but I distinctly recall watching the film "Wadd: The Life & Times of John C. Holmes" in which two or three people who knew Holmes specifically denied that he was bisexual. and recalled that he had trouble maintaining an erection in his gay shoots. George 18:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

This post is full of rumours, hypothesis and assertions where no evidence at all is presented. If the post is going to refer to rumours, such as the one that Holmes was bribed to have sex with other male prisoners, it should specify the source of the rumours. It looks like they were made up by the author. Grantex, 23 Sep 2005

The above post appears to be an advertisement for a pay porn web site.

I personally contributed the bulk of the John Holmes bio and the Wonderland Murders. It was not written in an effort to judge the man, but as a contribution to a noted personality in American pop culture.

While I sincerely doubt that Laurie Holmes herself contributed the initial post to this talk page (the user was an IP address), I do regard the comments to be biased. The facts about John Holmes speak for themselves: He was drug addicted, forced others into prostitution, committed a number of petty crimes, betrayed friends for money, was involved in a capital muder (regardless of whether he facilitated it or participated directly), was uncooperative with police concerning the crime, and participated in the making of adult films after he knew he was infected with AIDS. This hardly qualifies him as a good person.

vudu 17:11, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

After further investigation, I can, in fact, verify that PORNKING is available via the aforementioned web site. What isn't mentioned is that it will cost you $30 for a hardcopy edition, or "free" (e-book) with with a paid membership to the site. Like I said, seems like an advertisement to me and completely inappropriate for submission to wikipedia. vudu 03:16, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

This is pure advertising, delete. Ericd 04:32, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

More information is needed, particularly, did he divorce or leave his wife? The narrative jumps from wife to underage girlfriend with no explanation. Also, it's worth taking the above into consideration re: the number of films he made after he knew his HIV status. Exploding Boy 03:53, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

This bio doesn't do Holmes justice. Most of it seems correct but a lot is strange. The Cuban references don't make sense and seems hacked in by a vandal. The discussion of the penis size and dildo is really strange if not irrelevant and the account of his heroin use seems inaccurate. Holmes' story is interesting not so much for the pornstar aspect but for the fact that he was a very average guy from a rural midwest town who became successful in very unusual way - a way that is disdained and marginalized by our culture like prostitution is - and then crashed and burned as a result. Holmes' story sheds some light on an interesting aspect of our culture at an endlessly fascinating point in time. He had a very troubled childhood and the way he threw himself into porn stardom was a desperate attempt to reinvent himself and escape his humble origins. His story is really interesting in a lot of ways. The best information on Holmes I've seen is the documentary "Wadd - The Life and Times of John C. Holmes". The journalist Mike Sager wrote "The Devil and John Holmes" for Rolling Stone which is anthologized in "Scary Monsters and Super Freaks".

The injustice is when people delete sections from wikipedia entries without having the proof to back up their claims that the information is incorrect. Until proven wrong, you need to leave the entries alone. Period.

[edit] Gay?

Some people have tried to categorize these pages, saying that Holmes was Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, or transgendered? But no evidence is produced.

Yes, Holmes made a couple of films where he PORTRAYED a gay man. But this does not make him gay. If it does, then what to say about Eric McCormack, the straight heterosexual man who played gay blade "Will" on "Will and Grace"? Holmes was known for his notorious womanizing, and scores of women have come forward to tell their tale.

But we have never seen even ONE man come forward and say "I was John Holmes' boyfriend".

[edit] Oliver Wendell holmes

If JH really was a descendent, can the article be disambiguated to shoew which he was the GGGandson of. Rich Farmbrough 22:52, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Note: John Holmes CANNOT be a descendant of Olover Wendell Holmes. His birth name was John Curtis Estes. His father was Mr. Carl Estes, a railroad worker. His mother John's last name to Holmes after she married her second husbund, a Mr. Holmes.

[edit] Injecting heroin?

A number of anon users keep claiming that Holmes did not inject heroin. Our article has said the opposite for a long time. Do we have any evidence? AxelBoldt 02:15, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. The article is at present positively inconsistent on the issue:

From "Last Days": "Holmes never used needles and was deathly afraid of them; he was addicted to smoking cocaine."

From "Drugs and 'Wonderland Murders'": "his heroin addiction had grown worse"

From "Porn career": ..."right down to the burned out veins on each arm from his heroin abuse"

[edit] Ethnicity

"American" may well be accurate as an ethnicity but it's too vague to actually be useful. Could it be refined a bit? --88.110.189.21 21:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia is not censored

I suggest that you go to Wikipedia is not censored and read it carefully. If you continue to make these reversions simply because you don't like the content of the article, ultimately some sort of administrator action will be taken. It would be easier just to leave the article as it and turn your attention to more worthwhile edits. Hayford Peirce 19:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits removing/restoring the "Just how endowed was he?" section

User:2HOT2 recently removed the section Just how endowed was he? and related links to articles with explicit text descriptions of this topic. Some of these links also have suggestive images showing an apparently nude Holmes with his private parts covered by the hands of many people. From User:2HOT2's edit comments and remarks on Hayford Peirce and my talk pages it is clear that this user has a strong objection to this material. I have warned 2HOT2 and Hayford Peirce that they are close to violating the three revert rule.

Please discuss here. Are there good reasons (good according to Wikipedia policy) why this material should not be in the article? Is it factually inaccurate, improperly sourced, or "subtrivial" (of no real importance in relation to the article's topic)? Are there problems with its being non-neutral (e.g. grossly offensive to one side in some kind of debate and not balanced by an adequate representation of another point of view)? Are all of the links needed, or do the ones with the images merely duplicate information available in the links without the images? Are any of the links promotional linkspam? At first glance, I do not see any obvious problems myself. Dpbsmith (talk) 09:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Based on the edit notes, the editor who has been deleting this material is in direct violation of WP:NOT. John Holmes was a porn star. As such, the size of his penis was a significant component of his fame and verifiable information on that topic belongs in Wikipedia. None of the reasons this editor has advanced for deleting this sourced section carries weight with any site policy: people who find the subject offensive should avoid reading biographies of famous porn stars and people who are concerned about what their underage children see on the Internet should correct that problem at home. A person who fails to install adequate parental control software, fails to read basic site policies, and then lets their child roam unsupervised on an open edit site needs to reevaluate their own parenting practices. Questions about what a child sees through a school computer should be addressed at the school level - preferably by consulting one of the thousands of schools that don't have a problem with the site and adopting similar safeguards. Wikipedia cannot guarantee family-friendly content on any page. Even the biography of Walt Disney might be vandalized at the particular moment a seven-year-old reads it. The deletions to this page are also acts of vandalism - well meaning vandalism, perhaps - but vandalism nonetheless. One particular comment left on a user page in connection with this is deplorable: please read WP:NPA. Durova 14:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm concerned with this over taxed ideation that somehow, if "Wikipedia Policies" are broken, the link to the "sum of all human knowledge" will be removed. Part of the "sum of all human knowledge" is that rules are broken, laws amended and social thought updated or changed (the metaphorical "War on Terror" being one of them). Therefore, given the prior principles, Wikipedia Policies are really the antithesis of what it promotes. Part of the knowledge of mankind is that change is necessary. If it be to protect or oppress, change occurs. If my removing links that may not offend someone, but others, the argument can be drawn that justifies the removal as strongly as the argument that supports keeping them. Then the sum of human knowledge has been met on the issue, but at a cost to one of the arguments. Doesn't that counteract Wikipedia's goal?2HOT2 19:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)2

If you disagree with Wikipedia policies, then address that through proper channels rather than unilateral action. I doubt a consensus will agree with your opinion. Durova 21:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

This is the proper channel. A consensus of what? Like minded individuals with an agenda to fulfill!? Good faith only goes so far Durova. Your blaming parents for what their children see or talk about in school is disengenuous and frightening. It's as if a dictator proclaims that an element be imposed upon everyone and everthing, and those who oppose a rule be bannished. Your "unilateral" response that suggests a doubt about consensus, shows a bias towards performing the dictators wishes and blaming the opposers for their concerns is...superfluous. If the images on the links are illegal in some States, and they are, what is the defence of using them except for purient interests? What I'm hearing is Walmart should be allowed to sell X-rated videos among the Disney videos and the parents be blamed for taking the children shopping! I'm sure a consensus could be reached in favor of that too, if, as a society we only allow a consensus by a few, which we do, but that is a different matter in the over all debate. So try it, take your kids or your Congressman/woman's under age child (they don't have to be seven, a popular age in this group for some reason) to the Adult Video store and get them a video of John Holmes and watch it with them. Invite the local sheriff over for a view and popcorn, and let us know the results.2HOT2 23:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)2

Here's a proposal that will hopefully considered for this article and all "Adult" content articles. 1.) Take the blame away from the parents by creating an "Adult Topic Wiki". Put all subject matter in the "Adult" category so parents and other guardians of children know the content is there, a buried policy disclaimer does not seize the day. 2.) Have a verification process that is filter friendly and requires the user to verify they are of legal age for their jurisdiction. 3.) Then post whatever you want within the category, i.e., pictures, movies, postcards...whatever! At least that way, parents don't have to grow four sets of eyes, three additional arms and be cloned to follow their children everywhere to keep them from being exposed. Until they're legally responsible for their own actions. Surely a consensus can be built on this.2HOT2 00:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)2

It's a constructive suggestion, and a lot of people would agree with you, and many suggestions like this have been made before... but nobody has ever been able to come up with a workable way to do anything like this. In Wikipedia, people edit first and their edits are reviewed afterwards. Apart from the disagreements about the boundaries of the "adult" category, people add stuff far faster than people can review stuff.

I agree with you that a lot of information about Wikipedia policies is "buried." Nobody's ever been able to find a good solution for that, either. At one time, the bottom of the page was littered with links to various disclaimers.

I do not envy parents of children growing up in the Internet age. (My kids were college age before the Web really took off). Dpbsmith (talk) 00:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Then this may be the point for the prior suggestion to send to the powers that be a message for policy control, re-structure of "Adult" content into a category of its own, and a filtering policy provided by Wikipedia. At least the material would be available for those who have to have it and the minors and parents are "protected" through policy. I'm not really suggesting a police state for Wikipedia, just a prudent approach to a concernable issue.2HOT2 01:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)2

And who, pray tell, will decide what constitutes "Adult" content? You? The Pope? Jerry Falwell? Me? My gardener? 10 freshmen at Stanford, all of whom have just turned 18? 40 14-year-old hackers, all of whom can prove over the Net that they are 18 or older? Will articles about p*n*ses, v*g*n**s, etc. be classified as Adult? What about "Childbirth"? What about "Sex Education"? What about R*p*. What about almost any category you care to think about? I personally think that the vivid depiction of violence is far more disturbing than the depiction or description of sex. What do we do about links to extremely gory sites? To links about the daily violence all over the world? To articles about the horrors committed in the name of religion? I don't think this is a very workable idea. Hayford Peirce 02:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

To answer your prayer Mr. Pierce, yes, all of the people you mention, sans the 14 year old hackers who are the subject of protection. Since you zealously protect and proclaim Wikipedias policies, all of the mentioned "deciders" whould be a part of the consensus process. You do support Wikipedias Consensus policy suredly. Again, a prudent approach to what articles are deemed "Adult", which by the very nature of the word is a term to separate assumed levels of acceptability by age and development, would be defined by legal and ethical considerations through a sound Wikipedia policy, just like NPO, 3RR, and other policies have their boundaries. I will not expand the debate to your other issues. If you were travelling with your open minded references and came upon a hungry group of cannibals, I doubt your views and Wikipedias policies would keep you from being eaten, no matter how much you protested.2HOT2 13:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)2

Disclaimers: I'm no particular expert on this topic. I have, however, worked in the adult industry, been to law school, and done web design professionally, so I have some first-hand technical knowledge of the issues. Of course I also obviously have something of a pro-adult bias, and I have no children.

It seems to me that this is a perennial problem, one that famously has no perfect solutions. I see two major questions. First, to what extent does Wikipedia have a responsibility to prevent minors' access to content that our society generally considers inappropriate for them? Second, precisely how should Wikipedia go about carrying out that responsibility? The first question is logically prior to the second, so I want to address it exclusively and I think we should do the same throughout this discussion.

The question has both legal and ethical aspects. The law prohibits providing minors access to adult content. Unfortunately the details of this for the web are still extremely unclear. Despite this, the current policy seems generally sound to me. Wikipedia is clearly not pandering obscenity to minors. First, it generally doesn't contain obscenity; what potentially objectionable content it contains is almost inevitably not in violation of, say, the Miller test. It's equally clearly not targeted to minors. While most encyclopedias are certainly used by minors, Wikipedia does not reach out to minors for the purpose of exposing them to potentially objectionable content or even reach out to minors at all, as far as I'm aware. So legally it's probably ok.

The ethical issue is much more difficult. Whatever solution we come to must balance the very purpose of a general encyclopedia, systematically organizing and conveying an overview of the accumulated knowledge of humanity, with the ethical imperative not to harm minors by exposing them to damaging content.

I chose my words carefully there. It is not the responsibility of Wikipedia to prevent minors' exposure to information that is merely offensive to their guardians. Wikipedia is accessible to anyone on Earth with an internet connection. Standards of offensiveness vary extremely widely within that immense group, and content filtering technology is and will be for as long as we can see in no way up to such a gargantuan task. It is therefore impossible for Wikipedia to prevent minors' exposure to content that their guardians find objectionable, and I think we would all agree that no one can be morally obligated to accomplish an impossible task. There are also other moral arguments for my position, but I hope that one is sufficient for my purpose.

For that reason I suggest we choose a goal that is both more realistic and more morally imperative, preventing harm to minors by preventing their exposure to content that could be psychologically harmful to them. Alas, this is itself no minor task, for what is harmful to minors? This is in no way clear. Again, the audience for Wikipedia is in the billions and exists across widely different cultures which have widely different notions of what constitutes a "minor" and what sort of words and images are harmful to them. Despite that, I would hazard that there is a broad consensus that frequent exposure to uncontextualized graphic violence or sex has psychologically undesirable effects on younger people. This has some support in the still emerging research on the topic; it is also a very common opinion in most cultures I'm aware of. Thus I propose that Wikipedia should strive to prevent allowing minors access to uncontextualized depictions of graphic violence and sex.

I want to continue this, but it's already quite long and there are many points where others may disagree with me. I'd appreciate hearing those opinions, as I think this is a very important discussion, too important perhaps for this little talk page. --George 04:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

To reply a good distance above, this page is not the proper channel to propose changes to site policy. If you wish to make your proposal in a venue where the Wikipedia community may consider it, start here: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). I wrote that it's unlikely to succeed because every now and again someone comes up with the same ideas you've had for the same motivations. I've seen the reactions, but try it yourself if you doubt me. I suggest your time would be better spent in the following ways:

- - 1. Modify or replace your parental control software.
  - 2. Direct your children to one of the screened Wikipedia mirror sites rather than the original site.
  - 3. Work with your childrens' school administration.
  - 4. Get to know your children's friends. Your kids learned about John Holmes from someone - let's hope it wasn't an adult - and if I were in your position I'd want to distance the kids from whoever that person is.

Consider my position within the larger picture: Wikipedia has refused to cooperate with Chinese government censors. Jimbo Wales has told the media that he doesn't see any way Wikipedia could meet their demands and remain an open edit site. So for the past year all of Wikipedia has been blocked by the great firewall of China. Some journalists have praised Wikipedia for holding firm, unlike Sysco and Google and other firms that collaborated with the censors. It's rather frustrating to know that a page I nursed to featured article status, which other Wikipedians have translated into featured articles in the Indonesian and Chinese language editions, is unavailable to most of the people who read Chinese - yet I support Jimbo's position wholeheartedly. The challenge I'm posing to you is which side of this fence do you want to stand on? Do you want to assume individual responsibility as a consumer in the free marketplace or ideas or do you want to set a precedent that the world's repressive regimes would surely exploit? That particular article where I worked so hard had nothing to do with pornography. I don't edit porn pages. The article was Joan of Arc. Durova 08:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I didn't know there were "screened Wikipedia mirrors" or I would have mentioned them to 2HOT2 in the first place. Do you happen to have the specific URL's of any reasonably good ones?

Wikipedia maintains a large list of mirror sites. One that I noticed is: http://www.kids.net.au/encyclopedia-wiki/. This isn't a recommendation, just a name. Durova 16:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

For another example of a difficult case, consider our article on Titian's Venus of Urbino, a classic painting made in 1538 which Mark Twain described as

the vilest, the obscenest picture the world possesses--Titian's Venus. It isn't that she is naked and stretched out on a bed--no, it is the attitude of one of her arms and hand. If I ventured to describe the attitude, there would be a fine howl--but there the Venus lies, for anybody to gloat over that wants to--and there she has a right to lie, for she is a work of art, and Art has its privileges. I saw young girls stealing furtive glances at her; I saw young men gaze long and absorbedly at her; I saw aged, infirm men hang upon her charms with a pathetic interest. How I should like to describe her--just to see what a holy indignation I could stir up in the world--just to hear the unreflecting average man deliver himself about my grossness and coarseness, and all that.

We quite properly have an image of that painting in the article about it, but we do not include it in the article on Titian. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links?

Reviewing the links deleted by 2HOT2, since restored:

John Holmes at Vintage Porn Encyclopedia

is a rather short article from a site that IMHO does not meet reliable source standards. It does not seem to be a source for the article, and does not add much to the article except the image of Holmes with his private parts covered by many hands. The site is commercial and seems to have a high advertising-to-information ratio.

Interview with the maker of the 1998 documentary

has purely textual content. It is an interview by an reporter with the director of a documentary about Holmes. It appears to be the source for some facts in the article. The movie is listed in imdb. The reported is named but his credentials are not mentioned.

Summary of biography

The site is a commercial website promoting some kind of DVD conversion service. However, it contains a long biography of Holmes and the information-to-advertising ratio is good. The only image of Holmes is a small headshot and there is no suggestive imagery. The biography is credited to Sam McAbee, whose credentials are not mentioned.

Chronology of his life from Rotten.Com

The site is not obviously commercial. It bills itself as a "An archive of disturbing illustration... collects images and information from many sources to present the viewer with a truly unpleasant experience." The article has the image of Holmes-covered-by-hands. The short biography duplicates material in other sources, but has an interesting timeline. No source is credited.

from Scary Monsters and Super Freaks

is a dead link. http://www.mikeseger.com/ is realtor's website and seems unlike to have material about Holmes on it.

Obviously the dead link should be removed, and I'm going to do it immediately.

I'd support removing the Vintage Porn Encyclopedia link and the Rotten.com link. I don't think they constitute reliable sources and I don't think they add much to the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd second that.2HOT2 01:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)2

[edit] "Ersatz biography"

For the time being and subject to correction, I'm removing the sentence

In the ersatz biography of Holmes' life, Exhausted, Patton compared Holmes to a telephone pole and said that she only wished that she could enjoy more of it.

because I can't seem to find a reference to that book. I'm not sure what an "ersatz biography" might be, either. amazon.com says No results match your search for ""john holmes" exhausted" in Books.

Anyone know the actual correct title/author/publisher? ISBN? Dpbsmith (talk) 01:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It apparently is not a book, but a 1981 documentary movie called Exhausted: John C. Holmes, the Real Story. Here's a site: http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0130671/ Somehow this name has got itself inveigled into Amazon and other places as being a book, but if you go to those site to find the book nothing turns up. Maybe some clever hacker has been playing a joke on people. It's possible, I suppose, that Seka makes some comments about Holmes in the movie that are the basis of the material that you removed. Hayford Peirce 02:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

- Given that, as a movie, it's not very easy to reference--I've used DVD catalog number and number of minutes myself, but this is one DVD I don't think I can get from Netflix... and not one that I would care to play all of just to find one reference... and given that it doesn't really add much to the article... and that whomever put it in describes it as "ersatz," I don't think I'm going to put it back. If you want to put it back, with the imdb reference, I won't remove it. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  - Well, I'm certainly not going to put it back in. It's not much of an item anyway, and, to me, the reference sounds pretty dicey -- I wonder if this movie even really exists? Hayford Peirce 16:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This movie titled "Exhausted" was a 1981 documentary made by Julia St. Vincent. She no longer sells the movie/DVD but you may find reference to it on some adult movie sites as being available for sale. If you try to order it, they cannot get it unless they have stock, which is doubtful. It was avaiable trhough St Vincent's site at excite-DVD.com but that site is also defunct and the domain name for sale. The comment by Patton was made in the film and also was excerpted in at least one other Holmes documentary. There has not yet been a book about Holmes himself, just inclusion in works about the adult business. I don't see the harm in deleting it, or putting it back in. Not a very important statement either way.

[edit] Biography

All information in Wonderland Murders from upcoming Bio (verified) NEW INSERT INFORMATION ADDED-POSTING HERE BEFORE ADDING IT BACK IN AS ADVISED. If it still needs to be more specific, I will change it yet again. It is also widely believed, and widely diputed that a young teenaged girl known as Annie, another of Holmes underage lovers who was pregnant at this time, was present at the Wonderland murders, but hidden in a closet, protected by Holmes (interviews by JH Adams for the biography "Aces & Eights, 2007). A friend of the Wonderland residents, she was believed to have been assaulted at Nash's residence by several male guests a few days before the robbery, thus giving Holmes and the Wonderland gang reason for the personal humiliation of Nash and his bodyguard. (Aces & Eights, 2007, The Other Hollywood, Legs McNeil "robbery done in a demeaning manner", statement of Sharon Holmes in Wadd,attributed to John Holmes of "demeaning" way robbery carried out). Friends of the Wonderland residents speculated the baby was likely Ron Launius's, not Holmes's, accounting for Launius's particular venomous attack on Nash during the robbery as alleged in a forthcoming bigraphy by author J.H. Adams who utilized crime scene reports and interviews for the forthcoming book.

According to neighbors who had been interviewed by the police, it has been alleged that the girl was already in the home before the murders, having been a visitor, and Holmes used her to open the door from the inside and unknowingly give easy access to the interior for the killers, the intent being to not to alert the sleeping occupants of the home (from copies of confidential police reports, Aces & Eights). The Wonderland gang were known to be armed and may have been on alert, anticipating some sort of revenge for the robbery (Porn King, 1998). They were also aware of a threat by a person known as "Sam", a dealer/hit man to whom they owed a large amount of money according to a Hustler's 1983 article and John Holmes'Autobiography "Porn King". Autopsy reports and a video tape including actual crime scene footage was released along with the "WADD" documentary and shows the victims were beaten mercilessly and were barely recognizable. Annie was reportedly hidden by Holmes in the large walk-in closet in Ron Launius's bedroom, where, as can be seen on the LAPD crime scene footage, is inches from where Susan was found. It was reported that Nash let Holmes remove the girl from harms way in exchange for Holmes getting her to open the door and his later cooperation in the form of silence about the events of that night. A detective who worked on the murder, Frank Tomlinson stated that Holmes said "if he cooperated someone he loved would die (The Other Hollywood, Wadd documentary). Nash reportedly gave Holmes several hundred dollars after the murders, a fact which Holmes reveals in his Autobigraphy "Porn King" and also in the book "The Other Hollywood" by Legs McNeil. Part of the money was used to send the girl back east, the rest to get Holmes and Dawn out of town as well. Police have never confirmed nor refuted this element of the story, perhaps to preserve the ongoing investigation or the safety of the girl. The extent of involment of this young girl has come under more serious scrutiny in recent years. According to newspaper articles and websites (Court TV.com, Morning Call.com and the Express-Times,1993). This same young girl was arrested 11 years after the Wonderland murders, accused of killing another young woman over a drug deal gone wrong. Newspapers at the time described the killing as "execution style" ("Police describe slaying as execution style" Express-Times, 1993). If convicted, she faced the death penalty ("Death penalty may be sought for Emmaus Woman in slaying" Morning-Call, 1993). She was acquitted, just as Holmes had been acquitted in the Wonderland killings ("Defendant acuitted of all charges in woman's murder" Morning Call, 1994). In 2005 an Ohio newspaper ran an obituary for this girl, so the truth will likely never be known (Ancestry.com death notices, Columbus-Dipatch.com, 2005). Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Holmes_%28actor%29"

[edit] Dawn and Misty Dawn

This article is really *so* badly written! Are Dawn and Misty Dawn two different people? It's hard to tell. Also, the way the chronology jumps around is baffling. Someone who knows how to organize things, and who knows how to write, ought to spend some time straightening this article out. As it stands now, it is a mess. Hayford Peirce 02:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Dawn and Misty Dawn are two separate people.

Dawn met John Holmes in 1976 as a 15-year-old drifter of sorts (drifted to LA with her father, a disabled veteran). John started courting her and soon she became his girlfriend. Over the course of the next 5 years John abused her and got her hooked on drugs, and even prostituted her to the notorious gangster, Eddie Nash. After Holmes was released from custody in July '81 on suspicion of the Wonderland Murders, he and Dawn went on the lam and ended up in Florida. John visciously beath Dawn in public at the swimming pool of the Fountainhead Hotel. Dawn left him, turned him into the cops, and fled to Thailand for 7 years. In early news accounts of the Holmes saga, Dawn was known by a pseudonym, "Jeana Sellers".

"Misty Dawn" was the stage name of John's second wife, whose "maiden" name was Laurie Rose, and who now goes by the name Laurie Holmes. John met her in 1983, on the set of the porn classic, "Marathon". At the time she was the adult film industry's Anal Sex Queen, as that was her specialty and she was at the top of her form. After John Holmes' death she remarried, this time to porn star Tony Montana who, like Holmes, has turned up as HIV positive. Laurie's formal name would be Laurie Rose Holmes Montana. Quite a lineage of the adult film royalty.

[edit] The "Annie" Story

Note: I edited the following remarks, preserving everything that was said about the "Annie" material, its credibility, and web links and other sources bearing on it, but removing some speculation about the person responsible inserting that material. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Someone has been peddling a story like this all over the internet.

The "sources" that have been mentioned so far are credible. They are:

Express Times - The article no longer exists on the internet, but it only goes into the other high profile murder she confessed to, and it doesn't provide any verification or connection to the John Holmes story she is telling.

Court TV - This again is about the murder she confessed to in 1993, and doesn't provide any verification or connection to the John Holmes story.

MeAgain2006 19:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that message boards are not reliable sources, and if what you say above is correct--and I'm personally inclined to think it is--then editors should continue to remove this material whenever it is inserted without proper sources.

If the Marion Star published a retraction of an obituary, then if anyone cites that obituary or its copy ancestry.com it would be appropriate to add a sentence noting and citing the retraction.

I'm sure I don't need to point out that http://womenwhokill.com/ is not a reliable source in itself. It looks to me to be an attack site directed at Lori Scheirer, and I can't even tell who is responsible for the site.

Material not meeting Wikipedia's verifiability policy can be removed by anyone. The absence so far of source citations and your belief that the material is actually wrong makes it reasonable to treat the policies strictly, asking that this material be accompanied by citations when it is inserted, and removing it if it is inserted without reliable sources.

I ask you to try to keep your remarks here and elsewhere confined to the material, and avoid speculating on the identity of the person you think is inserting them, or making assertions about personal details regarding that person. Don't do anything that even comes close to being a personal attack. To that end, I've taken the liberty of editing some of your comments above that seem to me to be ad hominem. I hope you'll agree that what I've left is adequate. It raises enough questions for it to be appropriate to insist that this material not be reinserted without good, reliable source citations accompanying them at the time they are inserted. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem, even if something sounded like a personal attack I was only stating facts which unfortunately are not very flattering. My interest is in protecting the integrity of the John Holmes article, and due to the strangeness of the situation it would be impossible to do that without the background information that I provided. I have done all I can in that regard.

The Women Who Kill site is not an attack site. It was put up to provide documentation for the Marion Star to assist with its investigation that led to the retraction of the obituary. There were other entities that got involved and they were able to compare information of their own against info on the site, which led to the outcome I described before (I won't repeat it). I don't know how to say that any more politely, but I feel it is necessary since the obituary itself has been used as a source.

Unfortunately I think your remarks here will encourage more of the same, and I say that only due to over a year of personal experience related to this matter. I don't expect you to know that, or to believe me, but good luck. My intentions are genuine and you won't see any trouble from me. Thank you for your assistance. MeAgain2006 23:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Last Days?

Sorry ne undestand. One para ses "..longtime porn friend Bill Amerson both dispute the rumors of intravenous drug abuse..", they next para say "..and Amerson, have noted that evidence of Holmes' intravenous drug usage can be seen in frames from his last films". Se Amerson which viewpoint? Ecuse poor englis. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.221.136.75 (talk) 08:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] "Weight"

Is his weight 145 lbs or 135 lbs? I don't understand! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.27.168.204 (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Deleted American Criminal Category

There's no sourced assertion of any criminal conviction here. The article states that he was acquitted of all the Wonderland charges. He was jailed as a fugitive, and some tiime before trial, but not convicted of anything. Then he was incarcerated for civil contempt for refusing to testify. But that ended with the trial. It was not criminal contempt, at least not according to the article.

The one assertion of a conviction is entirely unsourced and would have to come out per BLP if he were still alive. Instead, I've put a citation tag on it. If we ever get a citation for it, adding the American Criminal category might be appropriate for discussion. But it's not a even a close call with no source. David in DC (talk) 19:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

He was convicted. Iwill attempt to find links. Although the main thing criminal about poor Johnny was his "acting". John celona (talk) 13:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk:John Holmes (actor)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Size Controversy

[edit] Size Controversy

[edit] Bisexual?

[edit] Gay?

[edit] Oliver Wendell holmes

[edit] Injecting heroin?

[edit] Ethnicity

[edit] Wikipedia is not censored

[edit] Recent edits removing/restoring the "Just how endowed was he?" section

[edit] Links?

[edit] "Ersatz biography"

[edit] Biography

[edit] Dawn and Misty Dawn

[edit] The "Annie" Story

[edit] Last Days?

[edit] "Weight"

[edit] Deleted American Criminal Category

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search