Talk:Katja Kassin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Katja Kassin article.
Article policies
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]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
Wikipedian An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Katja Kassin, has edited Wikipedia as
Katjakassin (talk · contribs)
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]
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Jamie Smith

I've removed the "Jamie Smith" name, since it has no source. If a reliable and verifiable source can be provided on her real name, then by all means it can be added.-- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 00:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I put back the original name, as found in IMDb. Valrith 05:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sexual Orientation

I changed my sexual orientation back to "heterosexual". I am not bisexual and I have never said anywhere that I was. This is wrong information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katjakassin (talk • contribs) 00:30, June 17, 2007

[edit] Katja Kassin's edits and revert war

I need to draw editors' attention here to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Dealing with edits by the subject of the article. Specifically the line "... subjects of articles are welcome to remove unsourced or poorly sourced material." While we don't encourage people to write their own articles, deleting incorrect unsourced information is fine. I think it has been shown that User:Katjakassin is Katja Kassin herself, by her comment on her myspace page [1], in her blog, under the "wikipedia" entry:

Saturday, June 16, 2007

wikipedia

I'm really sick of people posting shit about me in my wikipedia article. Some things that are said there are simply not true. For example I am not bisexual. I do film scenes with girls but I consider myself 100% hetrosexual. I don't know where that comes from because I have never said anywhere I was bi...

On the other hand if I try to update the article with correct and true facts about myself they always delete it.

That's also backed up by Fleshbot.

I looked at what she meant by her last line there, and it seems that her edit has been being deleted in a revert war. From the edit comment, it seems the deletion was inadvertent, but the edit comment on this edit is incorrect: (reverting to last by Katjakassin) - that's actually reverting Katjakassin's removal of the incorrect information. I will assume that was well meant, but I have to make a strong warning here not to do that, per that WP:BLP section I link to above; if I need to, I will enforce this as a Wikipedia:administrator. This edit, by the way, is adding a useful citation to Katjakassin's edit.

This also means that her myspace page should be considered both a Wikipedia:reliable source for purposes of using it as a reference for writing about herself in this article and an official site for purposes of the Wikipedia:external links section. So don't delete it the link to it. For references, we unfortunately can't hyperlink to individual blog entries since that's on the blacklist, but they can still be used, just by giving the date and section name in text form. Note on her commercial site, http://www.clubkatja.com/bio.html, where she writes "In my free time I love to work out, watch CSI Miami and hang out on myspace." Clearly it's important to her, and she writes useful information there.

I will be writing an an apology from Wikipedia and an explanation of the situation, and a link back to this section on her user talk page, if she ever wants to come back here again. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 06:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I was the one who first added the paragraph about her breast implants. I found out about it by reading her MySpace Blog. When I wrote the addition I had used her blog for the reference, but I then realized that Wikipedia does not accept blogs/journals as proper references. Which I can understand the reasoning for that. So that's why I said in my addition that she is keeping her fans informed through her MySpace.
Valrith seems to have a problem with all additions that are unreferenced. Even when I told him to look at her MySpace he still insisted to delete the addition saying it is an not a proper reference.
So when I saw that Katja herself had actually come on and verified the addition it by adding the link to the doctor I thought that Valrith would drop the issue, but he still continues.
So if any administrator agrees that my addition should be left out until a reliable source is found I will stop reverting and keep looking.
I also realize that I was reverting her orientation. I did not realize that and I apologize. I have since made the correction.
I have had this issue before with Valrith in that case of Ashley Blue's page. I added the paragraph about her leaving her JM contract to work with other companies from a video interview a saw. --Spinachmaster 14:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm getting pretty sick of being taken to task for removing unsourced/badly sourced material from articles.
Please note that User:Spinachmaster added the bisexual claim to the article [2] repeatedly ([3], [4], [5]), even after User:Katjakassin removed it [6] with a statement that it was false. After I added to the article a citation [7] for her being heterosexual, User:Spinachmaster removed the citation and restored the bisexual claim ([8], [9], [10]).
As to the usability of MySpace as a source, I still don't agree. Doing a "People" search in MySpace for "Katja Kassin" produces at least two profiles claiming to be hers [11]. We have no way to choose between them. Valrith 18:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I have admitted that it was wrong of me to change her orientation and I have corrected it. That is a dead issue.
Now as to MySpace being a proper source, AnonEMouse pointed out that her MySpace blog is a fine reference for statements about her. And if you look at the MySpace search you did two of the profiles have not been logged into for a some time. While the profile we are referring to is updated frequently and has a lot of personal photographs that no one else would have access to except herself. So I do not see how you can protest this not being her's. --Spinachmaster 21:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed with Spinachmaster. The other MySpace profile was "Last Updated: Dec 22, 2004", which doesn't match it being an active interest for her free time. Either it's a fan or an early profile she abandoned. Note that the commercial site, clubkatja.com, only came up in 2006, so it could hardly be referring to the 2004 site as her active interest. [12] Note that the information on the blog as to Katja Kassin's edits here matches the contributions of the account; matches the Fleshbot article; matches the Luke Ford interview. Note that the other information on the myspace blog is detailed, specific, and potentially verifiable, referring to tattoo removal, specific appearances, and specific scenes in specific films. Hoaxes do their best to avoid detailed specific and verifiable information like that, for obvious reasons. Note that the SlutWerkz filming matches Kylie Ireland's blog entries, and the Xfanz article but expands on them with, again, specific and potentially verifiable information. If User:Katjakassin comes back, doubters can ask for even more verification, but until then, I consider this proven beyond a reasonable doubt. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Jacobs

Looks like we have agreement, discussion removed so it won't show up on search engines; it can still be found in the talk page edit history. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Breast augmentation

It's true that I had breast augmentation surgery with Dr Jacobs. There is a new photo that Luke Ford took of me at the Erotica L.A. convention on June 24th: http://www.lukeisback.com/bloglukeisback/v/Erotica+LA+2007/DSC_0650.JPG.html I have no idea if you can consider that a valid source but I would say it's clearly visible that I'm a big bigger in the front. katjakassin 06:28, June 26 2007

[edit] general thoughts

The only reason why I'm getting involved in this is that I'm not the type of person that just shuts up and let things happen. If something bothers me I want to add a comment. It's not fair that just about anybody can add personal information about me. I'm not happy about my birth name being listed here and also not about some certain facts about my personal life. On the other side information that is correct is being deleted for lack of a source. Plus there's so much more I could add to my biography but I don't because it doesn't fit with the guidelines I guess. I'm not a celebrity, I'm not publishing any type of world changing philosophical thoughts or scientific research. I'm just making adult movies and it's just in the nature of things that there's no major mainstream and generally accepted media source about me. You can read articles about me in porn magazines and on some porn gossip sites and sometimes that stuff is just being made up. The sources that do exist are not comparable to a prestigeous newspaper or science magazine. If you expect that then you might as well just delete the whole article. Plus one more thing I have to add: "behind the scenes" interviews are often scripted in porn movies to fit the concept of the film. Porn is not real at all times and not everything that has been said and has been written about it is the truth. Articles about a movie or actor sometimes simly have the purpose to promote and sell the product.

katjakassin 06:28, June 26 2007

Welcome back!
The fundamental idea behind what facts we do and don't have in a Wikipedia article is called Wikipedia:Verifiability. Follow that link for details, but that basically means we shouldn't be the first ones to write something; anything we write should be available in some other reliable source first. That's what affects both of the issues you mention, both putting in things you do want the article to say, and taking out the things you don't want the article to say.
On those grounds, give me a moment to dig through all the references in the article for the real name. If no other interview or article cites the real name, we'll remove it. About the previous relationship, I'll look as well, but didn't you write about that in your own blog? We don't have to give details, just saying you got a divorce is generally enough, but at least mentioning a former marriage is important in an article about a person.
What makes a source reliable is somewhat relative to the subject matter. You're quite right that the sources that generally write about pornography are not comparable to a prestigious newspaper in general, but they can still be sources; Adult Video News, for example, is effectively a trade paper for this rather unique industry; it's a magazine with a staff, the writer isn't the same person as the editor, etc. Writing about pornography, you use pornography sources. Luke Ford is toward the borderline of reliability; he is a former journalist, a published author, and has been cited as an expert by the mainstream press, but he's just one person, without editorial review, so we can't rely solely on him for highly controversial stuff, but for less controversial issues, or using a photograph he took is fine; in fact, he put his photos under a free license that lets us use them, which is a wonderful thing.
For adding more things you do want the article to say, there is an easy way to meet that Verifiability standard, which is to put it up on your own web site. In general, we are allowed to use your own public web site as a reliable source for information on you as long as it isn't too contentious or self-serving. (In other words, we can't use your site for info about someone else, and if you write that you received the Nobel Peace Prize, we just might suspect something.) I imagine that's easiest to do on your Myspace blog. Before you do that, though, could you do one thing for us, to answer an objection, though? Could you put an explicit link on your commercial site, clubkatja.com, pointing to your Myspace page and blog, so that it is clearly identified that this is your blog, and not just that of a fan who happens to use your name?
I realize that may not be everything you want, but I hope that helps. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Done. Interestingly enough, I could find an interview about the marriage, but not about the divorce. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
As AnonEMouse says, welcome back! As he points out, what we strive for is verifiability. The theory is that we won't allow information into an article without there being a reliable source for it (and we're still trying to drill that point into people's heads here). What I will be doing (and I suspect others editors will as well) will be digging through the article and trying to back everything that's said in it with a source. My usual source for facts will be the various interviews that you've given over the years, and I've started hitting some of my favorite websites in search of that (e.g. AdultFYI).
You can contribute in two ways Katja. The first is if you were to point out what information is wrong. For instance, you said that you were not bisexual and that's been pulled out. What other mistakes are still present? Please, point them out and we'll cheerfully fix them!! On a related note, you might want to also point out what information you don't want present. If it's safe to pull it out then we'll do so just like we did with your real name.
The other way you can contribute it by pointing out what you do want the article to say. This is a bit trickier because, as the Mouse alludes to, it's tempting to put yourself in the best possible light, by hiding the negatives (e.g., do you really think Winona Ryder's official biography will make any mention of her shoplifting conviction?) or by stretching the positives. But that might be being me showing a touch of paranoia there. <G>
Once again, welcome back and we look forward to your contributions to helping build the best possible biography for Katja Kassin here! Tabercil 23:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


Ok, here are a few things that are not right: my first shoot with my new boobs was on June 21st. it's correct that I wrote on myspace it was to be the 26th but that shoot was canceled and I got another booking on the 21 for Doghouse Digital. I have a photo shoot tomorrow for my modeling profile on the L.A. Direct Models website. So I hope the new picture will be up soon so you can 100% verify my new boobs. LOL I did move to L.A. in November 2004 but I got married in January 2005 (not 2004) and divorced in October 2006. I will do my best to correct anything that I find to be wrong. You can add whatever things you find have a source but if you have any questions beyond that, just ask me. I have no problems with anything. I just don't want personal data like my birth name to be published. katjakassin 23:30, 28 June 2007

  1. Please put all that up on your web page, and we will be able to add it to the article. (As is, we have an interview saying marriage was Jan 2004, and your page saying the first shoot would be on the 26th; we need a published source that says otherwise, and this talk page isn't considered a reliable published source.)
  2. Also, please do put a link on your official site to your myspace page, to confirm the connection.
  3. Finally, you'll notice we added the picture you suggested earlier. Within reason, we aim to please. :-)

--AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't get it. Videos showing in public how you take a dick in your mouth right after it has been shoved in your anus is O.K., but telling your birth name is not? How can that be? Entering the internet age porn industry is consciously and willingly taking publicity to the utmost extreme. I ask all Wikipedia contributors and especially the admins not to bootlick (no pun intended) the subjects of biographical articles. Which pieces of information they want to see disclosed or bottled up is of no particular interest here. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia and not Vanity Fair. 83.135.195.31 03:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I strongly urge you to read Wikipedia's official policy regarding articles of living people, called Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. It clearly says: "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." (emphasis added) We did not have a reliable source for Katja's real name, so we excised it from the article... if the New York Times ran a story that clearly mentioned her real name, then we would likely add what they print. Tabercil 16:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] retirement

I'm not retired and I don't plan on retirement. If you quote me on any comment that I make, you won't go to sleep at night. This was not an official statement - it was me thinking through my options and possibilities for the future and it clearly said maybe. Please don't take a single comment that I make in a blog out of context and make it into a definite fact. If I will retire I will put out an official press release. The retirement thing has nothing to do in my official biography since it's not a fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katjakassin (talk • contribs) 02:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)