Talk:Marina Orlova (YouTuber)

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Bad Reference

Reference #3 (the Bill O'Reilly reference) simply refers to his Fox News page. It says to look half way down the page, but that reference was probably obsolete about 2 days after it was posted. This should probably be removed as well as the portion of the article that it is referencing if it can't be replaced.--76.104.90.6 (talk) 02:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Right, this one is difficult. But the source material is still out there on the internet -- I just could not find it, at Fox News, nor at the Wayback Machine (ext. link), nor at WebCite (ext. link). There was not even an "accessdate" field supplied (which would have been a nice gesture!); but, the edit seems to have been done "as of 20:43, 1 July 2008"; (see the "diff" page, at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marina_Orlova&diff=next&oldid=222254125). The date of the material "intended" for this footnote, seems to be April 14, 2008 (see next sentence). A Google search did turn up some "hits", that still contain the original content, such as these two: http://video.aol.co.uk/video-detail/the-oreilly-factor-keep-it-pithy/3831422129 (apparently that is a web site that is allowed to echo or "mirror" "cached" stuff like this), and http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:PGk_56HR6YkJ:www.univision.com/uv/video/Keep-It-Pithy!/id/3831422129+%2B%22Internet+vixen+teaches+O'Reilly%22&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us [that is a "cached" copy (at Google, -- I think) of a web page that was a "hit" from a Google search].
Is one of these better to use, to repair the broken link? For example, is one of these more likely to still be there, in the future? OR, is one of these more eligible, to be archived using WebCite or the Wayback Machine?
Meanwhile, I did add a "{{broken link}}" tag -- (which diplays as "").
Any advice will be appreciated. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I replaced it with one comparable link, the content is not controversial though so IMO there is not much of a worry, even if the link becomes dead it did exist at some time, I do like to have active links though, let me know if you feel it is not ok, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism

I'm certain she plagiarizes the etymological definitions from the Online Etymology Dictionary. Just compare a few videos yourself. I think we should put that in this article. Bluesagesjokeshift (talk) 08:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

That would be original research. Find a reliable third party source reporting that. bd2412 T 08:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It would also be a WP:BLP violation. You simply cannot add a statement such as that to the article unless ther are reliable sources to back the claim up. Resolute 14:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I wrote to Marina, and asked her a few questions. Here is what she wrote back:

"The Online Etymology Dictionary is very similar to many of my lessons because it gets its information from a few of the books that i have... including the Oxford English Dictionary and The Facts on File Word and Phrase Origins.

I live in Los Angeles and I make these videos for my living.

Marina" --80.164.127.165 (talk) 17:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Background

The "facts" in this article are merely taken from her online act. It could all be part of the act. Does she have any qualifications as a philologist/etymologist? What did she do before she was an internet star? What led to this career? 121.44.147.91 (talk) 21:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

If they are part of the act (i.e. are not true), then she's fooled some journalists. bd2412 T 21:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, there should be a cirticism section in this article, I could look up origins for words on etymonline or another etymology website. The only thing Marina is an "expert" at doing is using these websites, that's pretty obvious. I also think she grossly misrepresents the linguistic community. As a linguist myself, I'm insulted that she is making people believe we sit around all day and trace etymological roots. the fact o the matter is that etymology barely qualifies as linguistics, as what we REALLY deal with the theoretical basis of how language is structured and sequenced at all of its levels, phonology, morphology, syntax, etc. and finding ways to account for emprical evidence we come across in any language while still accounting for that which we do know. That is the true pursuit of linguistics, not her etymology crap. And besides, spelling bee champ Kavya Shivashankar probably knows WAY more about etymology than Marina does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.142.89 (talk) 04:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not obvious that Marina Orlova is just using etymology websites for her videos. Early this year, AP did a television special showing her looking up words in books. She has uploaded a video titled Behind the Scenes recently where she showed a bookshelf with books dealing with word origins.

The only thing that is pretty obvious here is that she's not just doing hardcore linguistics on her Youtube channel. She's doing word origins for entertainment. If you want to question her academic degrees in the "criticism" section, well, remember that "encyclopedic content must be verifiable". It's a fact that she's been interviewed many times, in fact you can watch or read all of her interviews on her website, and no journalist has ever questioned that she has two degrees from a Russian university. The simple fact that you personally dislike her has no encyclopaedic relevance and does not justify questioning her academic credentials in this article.--80.171.1.220 (talk) 10:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

If she is a linguist then what theoretical framework does she work in? Generative Grammar? She probably doesn't even know what Generative Grammar is, she has probably never read anything by Chomsky (to do with linguistics) and she grossly misrepresents our field. All of these things are worthy of being in the article! Hey wiki nazis, don't you bastards take this down again because I'll keep doing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.133.212 (talk) 04:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC) So what university did she go to?

Historical linguistics is the only real linguistics. Formal languages are computer science discipline that can only partially be applied to natural languages. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean historical linguistics is the only real linguistics? Clearly you have never studied linguistics in your life and know nothing about it. Don't go running your mouth about things you don't know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Htahpoahf (talk • contribs) 18:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

She's a philologist, not a linguist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.35.136 (talk) 23:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

To the guy with the IP 99.227.133.212, do you think that putting "Marina Orlova is also known for not having read Chomsky" would be OK?? then let's write Lady Gaga is know for not having listened to Vivaldi and she horribly misrepresents the field of music. Armando.O ^{talk ● Ev ● 3K} 08:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

She's not a linguist and she's embarrassing the entire field of linguistics. Linguists study how the phenomenon of language is actually set up in the human brain. This ivolves working in a lot of theory, including Chomsky's Universal Grammar among others. Marina does not demonstrate she knows any linguistic theory, all she does is etymology, and etymology barely wualifies as linguistics. It is useful to know but it's nothing you can't look up in a reference book. Not the case with real linguistics, as one must actually be trained within a theory to analyze something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.131.13 (talk) 02:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Apparently misrepresented her background

This documentary investigated her background in Nizhny Novgorod. The University says she was never a student, but a local strip club claims she once worked there: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zmt_JdUJAbA 75.49.238.83 (talk) 00:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

If that's a true account it is certain to catch up with her. What show is that on? I don't know anything about how reputable a given Russian TV show would be. bd2412 T 00:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be an Entertainment Tonight type of show. Someone moves to Hollywood with a falsified backstory? I am SHOCKED.--Milowent (talk) 05:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I have added the info from it, thanks!--Sinistrial (talk) 14:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

That is not a reliable citation. Off2riorob (talk) 14:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The reliability of the citation is questionable so far as the ethics of the program creators are questionable. It is clear, however, that this segment was produced and is available to watch; the question is whether what is said therein is true, which can be addressed by wording within the article. bd2412 T 16:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see this as worthy of inclusion but I will accept your experiance " The show displayed images alleged to be of Marina as a pole dancer, and interviewed a strip club who claimed that she used to work at his club.[7] ....It just looks very weak indeed to me, alleged and a strip club manager unnamed and unnamed club, no its worthless imo. Also BD you have added this to the lede.. Before moving to America, she was a pole dancer. do you really agree that that is a good addition? Off2riorob (talk) 16:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Didn't see that. It is taken care of. It's lunchtime here. bd2412 T 16:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Moved from my talk page:

It is not only that, I dispute it all, you yourself say it is poorly claimed and it should not be asserted like that so weakly cited in a BLP. very poor indeed and what worthwhile value do you think is it to the reader, an unnamed person from an unnamed place says Orlova was a stripper at my unnamed club. Utter rubbish. Have you got any other sources to support these controversial claims. Off2riorob (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not claiming that this report is true, we are only reporting that it exists, which it does. BLP is a policy designed to insulate us from liability for making defamatory assertions. Here, we are only asserting that a Russian entertainment show broadcast these claims. The fact of the clip being produced and made available through a public venue is incontrovertible. bd2412 T 16:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

you can have it anywhere you like but it would be better if you reverted your poorly cited claims about a living person. Off2riorob (talk) 16:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I did not add the material in the first place, I only restored it and properly reworded it to make clear that it is only an allegation. We do report allegations. bd2412 T 16:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

If you restore content then you are responsible for it. Yes notable allegations that are well reported at multiple reliable locations which this is not. Is it? This is especially true of controversial type content in biographies of living people.Off2riorob (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to remove it, go ahead. However, in the alternative, we are providing only the subject's own equally unsupported claims about her own background (albeit, her own claims have been reported as such in reliable outlets, but their is no evidence that these have been investigated). Should we present her story as unquestionable truth when it has been questioned? bd2412 T 16:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The fact that we have only the subjects claim for non controversial content is another issue and does need dealing with as well. Off2riorob (talk) 16:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately we are presented with a situation where the subject is clearly notable, has made declarations about her own background, and has largely been taken at face value. bd2412 T 17:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with your inclusion of this controversial weakly cited content into a BLP. To be honest with you, I am very disappointed in your support for the inclusion of this content. Does your addition mean that we can add her to all the sex worker categories? Off2riorob (talk) 17:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Should such an inquiry take into account her appearances in phone sex commercials? See [6] (at 0:45, 1:15, and 2:10). As I recall, these were previously mentioned in the article, but were removed for BLP concerns because, although it is clearly Orlova speaking in these commercials, no third party reported their existence. bd2412 T 17:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the disputed content for any further discussion to take place. Off2riorob (talk) 17:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Article is now protected from editing for one week. Hash it out here, please. I could just as easily have handed out some blocks over this, keep that in mind after the protection expires. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  • No, you could not have handed out any blocks. No one broke 3RR, or did anything untoward. We have had an entirely civil discussion over the inclusion of this material. Do not threaten blocks where they are unwarranted. bd2412 T 20:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I am a bit disappointed that the article has become fully protected for a week when the horse had bolted, so to speak..as that is perhaps the worst chance to improve the article which clearly is in need of some improvement, but perhaps that was what we deserved. I am certain all parties meant well and a degree of discussion has ensued from all parties, from Beeblebrox's point of view, I imagine after multiple similar disputes it is difficult to see the nuances of individual issues, lets all appreciate each others opinion and discuss a bit more, personally I don't want to fall out with any one over this content, but if we are to add something like this lets cite it well. Off2riorob (talk) 20:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
      • As there has been no actual edit warring on this article, I'd be glad to remove the article protection if there is consensus from all participants that this is a reasonable step. However, the controversial material has now been removed, and there is no need to restore it prior to a more thorough discussion, and some additional verification of those sources. Unless something spectacular happens in the subject's life over the next week, there really isn't anything to be done, so far as I can see. bd2412 T

Off2riorob can't show how the documentary isn't reliable, or how the phone sex commercials aren't fake. Yet, he must revert it anyway. Somebody who gets their fame from showing off their cleavage in hundreds of videos was a pole dancing stripper and was in phone sex commericals? How unexpected!--Sinistrial (talk) 20:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Lets look at the phone sex adverts, do you not see that they could be anybody and are totally unconfirmed to be her at all? I see you really think it is actually her and want to add it but we have a duty of care especially to living people that content that we add asserting that this is them should be extremely strong respected citations, do you have any such thing?I have heard that the adverts do look like her and sound like her but what we could use for such a controversial claim about a living person is independent quality third party citations reporting that she was in these adverts or whatever. Am I correct in assuming that this is all you have? http://www.youtube.com/v/CBqdSZQrscI&hl=en&fs=1 Off2riorob (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they sound and look like her, guess it's a clone or twin sister huh? Or is it clever video editing? You have forgotten to discredit the russian documentary too. Or do you want to go with the conspiracy possibility?--Sinistrial (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Lets start with the sex advert claim you added, do you see that wikipedia is not the place to add such content and unconfirmed, she looks and sounds like her links? Off2riorob (talk) 21:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You have a week to disprove my sources before they go back in.--Sinistrial (talk) 21:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, that is a poor discussion attitude, please take your time and read the general guidelines here, I realize you are new and please take a little time to understand the editing guidelines, links like you want to add are not reliable, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I've watched the documentary very carefully, and I'm actually not convinced. I asked before what show it was on, and didn't get a particularly conclusive answer. It is definitely possible for such a thing to be faked, and for the people/locations identified as belonging to Orlova's alleged schools to be actors, or to be referring to someone else altogether. Her name is never actually used in the discussion with the strip club owner, and we can not see what images he is looking at. As for the phone sex ads (only one of which is still up), watched in the proper aspect ratio, it is very clear that it is the same person as appears in the youtube bits. However, it is questionable at least whether this information is notable enough to include in the article, if no one else has mentioned it. bd2412 T 22:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Desired addition

Perhaps we should take the desired addition to one of the noticeboards for opinions, the reliable source noticeboard perhaps to see if the citation is reliable to use for details about the person and then perhaps the biography of living people noticeboard to see if the desired edit is perhaps a weakly cited titillating claim that is not widely reported about a living person. This is the edit after BD2412 tweaked it to be at least attributed and not displayed as if fact, also imo the phone sex stuff is clearly excessive but I think the editors still wants to add it and wants other opinions as to why he should not add it. Off2riorob (talk) 14:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

addition

When a Russian documentary interviewed Marina, she claimed to have been awarded a distinction in English studies at Nizhny Novgorod school. She then claimed she graduated as a teacher of Russian language, English language and literature from Nizhny Novgorod State University. The show visited both the school and university but both were unable to find any records of Marina.

The show displayed photographs allegedly showing Marina as a pole dancer, and interviewed a strip club manager who said that she used to work at his club.

comments

I don't think the "documentary" (and this word is used very loosely here) showed actual images of her as a pole dancer; they showed pictures of a few other women, and some images which clearly had Orlova's head on dancer's body. The article, by the way, should be consistent with Wikipedia style in referring to the subject by surname, not given name. I find the allegation that Orlova falsely claimed academic affiliations to be more pertinent to the article than the salacious details, because she is currently holding herself out as a trained linguist. She hasn't publicly denied appearing in phone sex commercials, or even working as a stripper, although I find the stripper claim to be the most dubious based on its presentation. On the other hand, the article already makes clear that she is cashing in on her sex appeal, so other instances of the same are neither out of bounds for inclusion (if reliably sourced), nor implausible. bd2412 T 23:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I am unclear, what addition are you supporting? Off2riorob (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't write the above proposed addition, I'm just commenting on it. If we can find better support for the supposed Russian documentary, I think the claims regarding misrepresentation of her academic background would belong in the article. bd2412 T 00:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't had much of a look round but it is true the article is a bit fluffy as it is but I am still glad that the content the editor that has only edited this article wants to add was removed, the wiki is sometimes like a celebrity magazine which I would not read. Off2riorob (talk) 00:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

As you haven't come up with any good reason to why it shouldn't included, I'll be restoring it when the protection expires.--Sinistrial (talk) 15:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Unreliable citation, controversial weakly cited claim about a living person that is not widely reported. Off2riorob (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you ever going to say how a documentary is unreliable or just keep repeating yourself?--Sinistrial (talk) 16:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The comments about her are very vague claims and they are also very controversial, the like of which we need to have strong citations for, are there any other reliable citations claiming she was a stripper and a pole dancer? Off2riorob (talk) 16:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The documentary is on her, they show a photograph of her pole dancing and interview her ex-manager, this is vague? LOL. Like I said, you don't have any reason not to add this in to the article. Or do you have a crush on her?--Sinistrial (talk) 17:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Me? well she does look lovely, but it is you that appears obsessed with her, you only edit the single issue. ORlova is a stripper, yawn. A alleged picture of her pole dancing?so we could add a man in a tv doc showed what he claimed was a picture of orlova doing a pole dance, an unnamed man also claimed to be the manager of an unnamed strip club and he also claimed orlova once worked for him, more yawns.Off2riorob (talk) 17:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Again you don't understand the video you are talking about, all the people they interview have their name shown at the bottom of the screen including their occupation. And since when did Russian networks purposely broadcast libelous investigations without any kind of verification? If the only reason you have to not add the information is personal problems, read WP:CENSORED and take your personal problems elsewhere. Otherwise I will just report you to admins.--Sinistrial (talk) 19:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

You can of course report me wherever you like, but please don't tell my mum. You do not understand not censored is a guideline but we have a duty of care to protect living people from this kind of weakly cited controversial claim. Off2riorob (talk) 19:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I've watched the documentary footage frame by frame. At no point is an actual image of Orlova as a dancer shown. There is an unclear image at 3:25 of blond woman which looks only vaguely like her. There are images at 4:34-4:27 that are very clearly the same copy of Orlova's face superimposed on another woman's body. There is no actual photograph of her pole dancing, and it is actually never clear in the interview that the person identified as the strip club owner is talking about Orlova, as opposed to someone else. It also remains to be demonstrated that this material ever actually aired on any television show. Has the show even been identified? Can the interviewer be identified? bd2412 T 20:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

This video is clearly valueless and should not be used at all to support any claim of the subject being ever a stripper or a pole dancer or for that matter anything at all. Off2riorob (talk) 22:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh so you want to go with the conspiracy option. And let me guess all the old photos of her either don't look like her enough or were taken from the web? Adding obviously true information to a bimbos article and I get faced with males that fap over her and don't want the truth added! Does this happen often here? No wonder Jenna Jameson is a featured article!--Sinistrial (talk) 09:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh look they even have a preview on the networks official website http://www.ntv.ru/peredacha/glavniy_geroy_predstavliaet/#main_content click on "Архив" -> go on second page -> choose "Супер Новые Русские". I guess the networks site was hacked to include the video was it?? CONSPIRACY!!! LOL--Sinistrial (talk) 12:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

It matters not, the video clip has nothing in it that is able to support such unsupported controversial claims about a living person. Off2riorob (talk) 12:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I followed your guide and all I found was this...

Raspaltsovka, Golden, wheelbarrows and crimson jackets. They do not need all is because they are talented, young, beautiful, and speak English well. Russian, which is not afraid, but love the West. Hollywood star Anton Yelchin, Norwegian nugget Sasha Rybak. They glorify Russia, but Russia has lost them. "Super New Russian" on Thursday will be the protagonists of NTV.

It is complete rubbish, any video clip that sticks the head of someone in a picture is absolutely not a reliable source for anything, also the presenter guy going to a school and showing a picture of Orlova as a fully grown woman and asking teacher or someone they claim was a teacher if they recognize the person from when she was eleven is a joke. Off2riorob (talk) 13:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The allegations belong in the article, what ever you think of the show, tough luck. It may not be the best quality show, probably like fox news junk. But there's no reason to suggest why they would make any of it up. It is a long running show produced by NTV (Russia), a major news channel which is broadcast all over the globe. Meaning, they would have strict editorial controls in place to stop false allegations from being broadcast. Do you actually have any reasons to suggest it might not be reliable which don't involve your personal opinion and thoughts? For example previous reports were shown to be false?--Sinistrial (talk) 13:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

We don't add isolated allegations like this, especially as I said when they stick the pictures of someone on to another persons body. Your extended discussion about your desire to add this poor content is becoming pointy, presently we have two experienced editors that have both had a very good look at this situation and both are rejecting this edit and you don't appear to be listening.Off2riorob (talk) 13:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

A documentary on the individual broadcast on a global television network is an 'isolated allegation'? Are you ever going to tell me why this network can't be trusted or not? You've had the entire week already to do so, or you do you need more time?--Sinistrial (talk) 13:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

In this article[7] it is said that she has finished schools and a "college" in Arzamas, not in N. Novgorod, where the journalists conducted the "investigation" (Я родилась и выросла в Арзамасе (город в Нижегородской обл.), - рассказывает Марина. - Окончила Арзамасский пединститут с двумя дипломами - «учитель русского языка и литературы» и «английская филология»). So they might have visited wrong schools and not ones she has attended to. 85.89.173.59 (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

They visited the ones she claimed to have gone to in an interview with her, she just can't keep her story straight. This shows you can't trust a thing she says, putting the factual accuracy of the opening of the article in question.--Sinistrial (talk) 07:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The version about Arzamas Pedagogical Institute seems to be more probable. I've searched information about it and found something like that: [8]. There is a subject "Russian and literature with specialization a foreign language". It's far from true linguistics, just a vocational college for teachers. So her "two diplomas, one in Russian studies, another in English studies" might be just some kind of a "vocational diploma in Russian literature teaching with the elements of practical ESL teaching at the beginner to lower-intermediate level". She obviously don't want to tell the whole truth in the interviews, claiming something different in each one, so any information about her background is uncertain. 85.89.173.59 (talk) 13:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Video links

Phone sex commercials

1. Hot Talk at 800-333-6969. Starring Marina from Hot for Words
2. Free Partyline - VI-ENG-60
3. Free Talk Line- VI-ENG-30
4. Hot Chat 876.538.5869-starring Marina from Hot for Words
5. Hot LiveGirls- Featruing Marina from Hot for Words

Russian documentary

1. Marina Orlova - from Russia with "love" (full version with English subtitles) part 1 of 2
2. Marina Orlova - from Russia with "love" (full version with English subtitles) part 2 of 2
3. Official network site preview of report, click 'Архив' then page 2, then click '«Супер Новые Русские»' to watch preview of episode at top of screen.

--Sinistrial (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• The phone sex commercials are simply not notable. Find me a third party source that mentions them. As for the documentary, identifying the station and providing evidence of an actual broadcast does go a long way towards supporting their inclusion, but these remain mere allegations. How reputable is the show? bd2412 T 17:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
• The link to the clip also provides a broadcast date, October 15, 2009. bd2412 T 17:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

You keep questioning the reputation of the show when it is broadcast across the globe. Like I said above, false allegations and investigations would not be broadcast due to strict editorial control. And how wouldn't commercials be notable? This article is already tiny, it was part of her career, not a walk down her local coffee shop.--Sinistrial (talk) 18:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

There are reputable disinterested sources that discuss her career as a youtube linguist. These do not make mention of her phone sex bits. We require not just the information that she did these, but that some reputable and disinterested third party finds it notable enough to mention that she did these. Suppose she shot a video indicating her preference for feeding her dog a particular brand of dog food. Would that belong in the article? It does not seem that it would be important enough to merit any mention, except in the unlikely event that some news outlet report it as newsworthy. As for the broadcast, do you mean that it was "broadcast across the globe" in the sense of this being a multinational broadcast, or do you mean only that it was broadcast in a location geographically on the opposite side of the globe? I am not specifically questioning the reputation of the show, I am asking for evidence of its reputation. What is the name of the show, and have you any evidence that it is considered reputable? bd2412 T 19:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Sinistrial, get gawker to post about the phone sex vids and you may eventually get them into the article. But we aren't the breaking news source.--Milowent (talk) 20:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Marina Rodina Real or model name/alias sources

List of sources that connect her to that name or 'alias'.--Sinistrial (talk) 18:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

1. http://www.contactmusic.com/photos.nsf/main/alex_quinn_023_wenn1333791
2. http://www.101lifestyle.com/celebritypics/marina_rodina.html
3. http://www.101lifestyle.com/cgi-bin/celebs/celebritypics.pl?q1=marina_rodina&PicNo=2
4. http://web.archive.org/web/20070620161434/http://www.youtube.com/user/hotforwords
5. http://beautyqueentv.com/european_marina.html
6. http://www.jamba.pt/jow/slp_order.do?groupname=log&contentType=3&doc=17215117&parentId=17215051&jhs=279
7. http://www.hollywoodtuna.com/?p=33785
8. http://www.surfshot.com/Bikini/_2006.msurfshotcrew/Marina+Rodina-65701.html
9. http://www.hollywoodnewswire.net/pubPages/other/specificInspector.php?eid=1629&id=83205
10. http://www.hollywoodnewswire.net/pubPages/other/specificInspector.php?eid=1629&id=83206
11. http://www.patrickmcmullanimages.net/site/search.aspx?t=person&s=Marina+Rodina

Comments

Please read WP:RS . None of these citations are reliable sources to support that the subject of this wikipedia article is that person. The redirect should be removed if a reliable citation is not presented. Off2riorob (talk) 18:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

One of those is a primary source, so it is quite suitable as noted in reason #1 Wikipedia:REDIRECT#Purposes_of_redirects.--Sinistrial (talk) 18:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The section you are quoting is not about primary sources but primary names, none of the citations, and I use the word loosely has any mention of the two names or has any content at all that verifies that the two names are the same person. On what wikipedia reliable grounds are you asserting that this is the name of the person in this article? Off2riorob (talk) 18:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

See source #4 and WP:SELFPUB. I'm even tempted to add it to the article now, but that's for another day.--Sinistrial (talk) 19:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Utube, you want to use that utube link to assert that the subject of this biography is that person, would you please take it to the WP:RSN to see what opinion there is about it, and then we can progress either way, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Investigation show source

The following investigation/documentary show based on the subject was broadcast across the globe, is it reliable and notable? It was broadcast on NTV (Russia)

You can see a preview of it at Official network site, click 'Архив' then page 2, then click '«Супер Новые Русские»' to watch preview of episode at top of screen.

Or you can watch the entire thing on youtube - part 1 + part 2

The proposed content and references to be added can be viewed at #addition.--Sinistrial (talk) 17:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Re your Third Opinion request — I am a Third Opinion Wikipedian. I have removed the request from the list of active requests on the Third Opinion request page in light of the RfC which is pending on this matter. (Indeed, in light of the fact that there have already been a number of responses to the RfC, as set out below, with more perhaps to follow, it would appear that this dispute may no longer an appropriate subject for a Third Opinion.) Please see the instructions on the Third Opinion project page and the Third Opinion FAQ. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment

Comment from Off2riorob about the RFC above

• Previous to comment please read the recent previous discussion about this content and desired addition at the Reliable sources noticeboard. I oppose inclusion of this poorly cited controversial content. Off2riorob (talk) 18:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment from Diannaa

• Other discussions occurred at WP:ANI on March 22, WP:ANI on March 24, and the BLP Noticeboard on March 27. So far you have received no support for adding this to the article, and I have added in the meantime an additional citation showing that her education is as claimed. Diannaa ^TALK 23:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC) I oppose inclusion of the content Diannaa ^TALK 02:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment from MM (an anonymous editor from Earthlink IPs)

• Content in articles about living people, particularly controversial content, require the highest quality sources. Even a typically reliable source with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy that frames content with " She was remebered only at one place. Girls that graduate don't usually go to such places. " is scandalmongering and would be unacceptable to use in that instance. Oppose inclusion of content until / if more reliable sourcing is found. MM 207.69.137.41 (talk) 00:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Redirect to Marina Rodina?

Some kind of redirect has been created, does anyone know what is going on? Is there a wikipedia reliable sitation that shows that these are the same person? Off2riorob (talk) 18:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the redirect from Maria Rodina. Unfortunately we now have a blank article which will have to be removed, so I have proposed it for deletion. Diannaa ^TALK 02:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

This equivalence of names is looking like original research. The references above do not mention the name "Marina Orlova". Do not blank out a redirect, instead use a {{db-R3}} tag instead. However in this case I suggest that you don't request a speedy delete again as it is controversial, and needs a proper discussion. Here will do. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• I oppose this redirect, there is not a reliable citation that supports the Orlova is this person. Off2riorob (talk) 12:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

She posted it on her youtube profile (WP:SELFPUB). Searching the name brings up a wide array of her pictures of her with that name on many websites, suggesting she has used that name more than once. So it is a redirect from one her alternative names as recommended by reason #1 on Wikipedia:REDIRECT#Purposes_of_redirects. No reason to delete.--Sinistrial (talk) 12:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing reliable that supports that this is the same person. Off2riorob (talk) 13:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

So the subject posting it on their official page isn't reliable? *deletes entire article as unreliable!*.--Sinistrial (talk) 13:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Pictures of a blond woman with a different name is not a reliable claim to an alias or another identity. Off2riorob (talk) 13:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, that on it's own would qualify as WP:OR. Good thing she posted it on her own page then!--Sinistrial (talk) 13:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't see it there, are you talking about http://www.youtube.com/user/hotforwords ?

How about you dummies using your two eyes? When you place the two pictures side by side, you can see that they are one in the same person. Especially since they both have the exact same belly piercing in the same exact place, among other identical body features. http://funbikni.blogspot.com/2010/09/marina-rodina-hot-pink-bikini-pictures.html and http://www.guxed.net/marina-orlova.html. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.120.93.186 (talk) 01:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The fourth link in the previous "Marina Rodina" discussion section is clearly showing she used that name until June 2007. Or is there a problem with web.archive.org's reliability? Or is someone claiming 'hotforwords' has not been her account since Feb 26, 2007 (as the archive claims the account was created)? And web.archive.org's later saved pages show she has been "Marina Orlova" from March 2009. 85.217.42.90 (talk) 07:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The new picture

A new picture has been added, it is not a very good picture imo , she is leaning over to one side, the picture has clearly been cut in half and you can still see the other person, imo it adds nothing to the article and the article is better without it, opinions and comments? Off2riorob (talk) 13:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The image fully complies with the Wikipedia:Image use policy, is of high resolution, a frontal face shot, and was taken only 3 months ago. It is also partially better over the current image as the current is from a modelling photoshoot and has been photoshopped and manipulated with[9] and was taken in 2008 according to the exif data. So it is much newer, and seeing as it is not been played with, more encyclopedic.--Sinistrial (talk) 13:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing per se wrong with the image. The important thing is that it is in the public domain. bd2412 T 17:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

New picture is fine. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

One-minute shorts after RT

On the MHz Networks channel, they carry the news program RT (Russia Today). At the end of each show, there is a 60 second clip. This is a for-TV episode of her "Hot For Words" show, but in this show she takes the time to teach a few Russian words to English speakers. The format seems to be similar to the videos she has done for YouTube otherwise. Shouldn't there be some mention of this on her page? I think these short clips are being aired on more than MHz Networks, but I wouldn't know where else. 03:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.51.95.246 (talk)

Removed categories

For such a small article, it has many categories. I have removed the following categories:

1. Category:Etymologists Has not contributed anything notable to this field, look at people already in that category for examples.
2. Category:Linguistics writers Same as above. Hasn't written anything notable.
3. Category:Literature educators Similar to above, not known for any form of formal teaching. Making videos isn't a form of formal teaching so doesn't qualify.
4. Category:Russian philologists Same as 1.
5. Category:21st-century women writers Same as 1.
6. Category:Russian non-fiction writers Same as 1.

I'm guessing most of these categories can be backed by the fact the book 'Hot for Words: Answers to All Your Burning Questions About Words and Their Meanings' was published. But as above, there is no evidence that is this ground-breaking, or been cited by any expert in the field, or that is what she is known for.

Similiary, you would not have Kim Kardashian in Category:21st-century women writers because she wrote 'Dollhouse' and wrote 'Kardashian Konfidential '. Although Paris Hilton is in that category because her book became a New York Times bestseller. Or Danny Lloyd isn't in any teachers/biologist/professor categories, because they aren't known for that.

• I haven't removed Category:Radio presenters yet, but will do so in future. As I can't find any source that backs this up. I suspect these were one off appearances.
• The Category:YouTube seems like a category where random youtube related articles are added. Seems to have no specific purpose, but as the problem is with the category I've left it in.

Again, these categories can be restored when an expert in that field cites them, or their work.

For guidelines on this, see Wikipedia:COP#General_considerations, Wikipedia:Categorization#Defining_characteristics.--Sinistrial (talk) 15:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Back online

Anyone plan on updating now that she is back on line? Gordonsanders (talk) 05:16, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Update on Miss Orlova?

If you look at her YouTube page, she’s doing some pretty weird stuff now. She appears to be on only fans a little, and her Facebook page looks strange too. Maybe investigate and do an update? 107.115.45.50 (talk) 01:45, 14 June 2021 (UTC)