Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography/Archive 2

This project should be renamed

Regardless of whatever is going on above with expansion of this project, this project, and Category:Porn stars, and whatever other templates and such use the term "porn stars", should all be renamed to "Pornographic actors". "Porn star" is a slang term, we don't refer to any other type of actors in wikipedia as "stars", so calling porn actors this is inappropriate. Note that the main article on this topic is already called Pornographic actor, not "porn star". --Xyzzyplugh 19:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and still support "Category:Porn", with "actors, models, directors, writers, etc." going under that category. Dekkappai 20:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm definitely in favor of something that deletes "star" from the terminology, "stars" is not consistent with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view—who makes the judgment call that the person is a "star"? However, I'm not too keen on using "actor", either.

My first choice for terminology would be "Performers in pornography". "Pornographic actors" is different than "Black actors", "Jewish actors", etc.; the descriptor applies to them as people. Here, the performers aren't pornographic, what they do is. Other choices might be "People in pornography" (which broadens who can be included: directors, etc.), "Pornography performers", or "Pornographic performers" (my least favorable for reason above).

I proposed something along these lines a long while back at Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors), the discussion is in the talk page archives, with more comments under the section "New can of language worms, anyone?" (OK, I thought it was funny at the time).

I've been effecting similar changes elsewhere. List of gay porn stars has been renamed List of male performers in gay porn films; Category:Gay porn stars been renamed Category:People appearing in gay pornography. I proposed both changes. With regard to the category change, it can now include non-actors ("models" who appear in live sex shows, either online or in public, for example).

A drawback here, and one of the points made at WP:BIO, was that if we want to be consistent, there are gazillions of changes that would need to be made.—Chidom ^talk  20:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Could someone change this mistake?

Hallo, I found the following mistake: The french actress Marilyn Jess has a page at the english wikipedia with the name "Marylin Jess", but actually this is wrong. She never appeared anythere with this name - so someone mixed up the "i" and the "y" in her given name. The link http://egafd.com/actresses/details.php/id/m0008 shows all her names. Could anyone change this mistake please or create a redirect please? Sorry my english is not the best. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.188.9.90 (talk) 02:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

OK. Done. Dekkappai 02:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Collaborations?

Is there some sort of weekly/monthly/etc. collaboration project? Recently Lisa Sparxxx's article was basically gutted. Granted, the info removed wasn't sourced but now it's a one sentence article with an infobox. Surely she's done something that can be cited, so I'm wondering if there's some sort of effort for filling in these articles. Dismas|^(talk) 11:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Pornography

I've moved the project from WikiProject Porn stars to Wikiproject Pornography as per consensus. The project covers the same topics it always has, but is now expanded to include porn films, filmmakers, porn genres, internet porn, and the larger topic of pornography itself. I've made some changes to the project page to reflect that. Let me know if the new version meets with your approval or whether some changes should be made. Iamcuriousblue 19:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Looks like a good change, thanks. Johntex\^talk 19:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Lukas Ridgeston

Not sure if there has ever been any community consensus on this, but there is a discussion over at Talk:Lukas Ridgeston#Birth Name as to whether or not the use of the actor's real name in the article is an invasion of privacy. I see that the issue come up before on this discussion page about a year ago (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography/Archive 1#Real names), but I'm not sure if any consensus was ever reached. Skeezix1000 20:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate to post actors real names without permission

I think it should be considered a taboo to post the real names of adult actors without their express permission or if they are deceased or have publicly stated their real names. The pseudonyms are not used so much to sound sexy, they are to protect those people's identities from stalkers and the like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.161.105 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 18 April 2007

As public figures, you must realize that porn stars' rights to privacy are lessened. Wikipedia is no exception to this rule, and we aren't about to carve out an exception for them. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 17:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

That said, though, per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, it is one of the things we really should cite sources for. Marylin Star is an example; it is not clear whether she has voluntarily given her real name, but it has been cited by sources such as Time, CNN, and the New York Times, so we use it. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The anon editor is most likely Joanna Angel or someone in her employ based upon this edit in conjunction with this topic. I agree that BLPs should be vigorously sourced. However, we have no obligation to remove true information, although we tend to make an exception for statements that may be construed as libelous. Names, as far as I know, are not libelous. :) —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 23:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

If your going to have your biography on wikipedia, your name is a prerequisite. Manic Hispanic 00:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

(outdent for clarity of quotations)
I believe portions of the Biographies of living persons policy deals with this in very clear terms: (green text is my emphasis)

When the subject of the article is not a public figure

Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not public figures but are nevertheless entitled to the respect for privacy afforded public figures. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only information relevant to their notability. Material from primary sources should generally not be used unless it has first been mentioned by a verifiable secondary source (see Using the subject as a source).

In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.

and

Presumption in favor of privacy Biographies of living people must be written conservatively and with due regard to the subject's privacy.

Public figures In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take information from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out.

* * * *

Material from primary sources should be used with care. For example, public records that include personal details such as home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations and home or business addresses should not generally be used. Where a fact has first been presented by a verifiable secondary source, it is acceptable to turn to open records as primary sources to augment the secondary source. Material that is related to their notability, such as court filings of someone notable in part for being involved in legal disputes, are allowable, as are public records such as graduation dates, dates of marriage licenses and the like, where they are publicly available and where that information has first been reported by a verifiable secondary source. See also Wikipedia:Verifiability.

I agree that care should be taken to be sure that disclosing the information substantially contributes to establishing the notability of the person. I doubt that this is true with regard to providing someone's legal name. They may have "stage names" or pseudonyms primarily in order to protect their privacy. Wikipedia should not violate that privacy for the sake of titillation.

It's also important to note the distinctions about where and when primary, secondary, and tertiary sources are allowed.—Chidom ^talk  11:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

And just to add to the discussion, I want to make mention of an email exchange I had with Jimbo on the topic of sources for their real names. I had asked him about using IMDB as a source:

Is there any better source than the IMDB article? IMDB relies on user-contributed content, and I see no reason why it would count as a remotely valid source in this case. If there is a valid source (newspaper, magazine, book?) then I would assume it can be introduced no problem. But as it stands now, we are likely to simply be echoing someone's smear campaign against someone else entirely if we just quote IMDB.

Note that the original topic of discussion was regarding Aurora Snow's real name, but the same logic I think would apply for other actors. Tabercil 12:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that most real names for adult performers whose work has appeared in the United States must be revealed under federal law. It is easy for anyone to obtain the real name of a performer simply by filing the proper request with the company (film, photographic, Web, etc.) which produced the work. By law, the name (along with proof of age) must be released. While I understand that the putting the real names of individuals on Wikipedia may cause some performers distress and may cause unwanted attention (such as stalkers, problems with child custody, job loss, etc.), I see this as part of the risk performers undertake when they enter the adult film industry. The real name of Tom Cruise is known, and people can easily find out where he lives. The real name of Lukas Ridgeston is known (and easily found on the Web), and people can find out where he, too, lives. - Tim1965 01:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

That's fairly clearly covered under Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. We don't write articles that require "filing the proper request" ... or just imagine what could be written under the banner "It's easily verified by filing a request under the freedom of information act", or "It's easily verified by performing a simple experiment involving balls of different weight and the leaning tower of Pisa". "easily found on the Web" doesn't qualify as a Wikipedia:reliable source, and for something controversial about a living person, we need good citations from reliable sources. If the person in question is actively trying to hide this bit of information, it's pretty clearly controversial, which means we need to be extra careful. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

On a related note, I came across a fairly new (1 month-old) WP article: Grigori Galitsin. On one hand, I think the subject of the article was a notable enough figure in the internet porn world to have a bio up. However, the article itself mostly seems to source from internet discussion groups. It also publishes the actual names of the models based on discussion group citations. I'm pretty sure this violates all kinds of WP guidelines. I'll probably step in and clean it up in the next few days, unless somebody wishes to argue that proper sources were used. Iamcuriousblue 20:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Any Spanish speakers?

If there are any people present on the project who are fluent in Spanish, can they look at this story about Nacho Vidal and see if there are any details we can fold into his article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tabercil (talk • contribs) 00:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Template and Assessment Project

I'd like to propose that WikiProject Pornography begin using a template. I propose {{Pornography}}. As noted on Wikipedia:Template namespace, all we'd need to do is create a page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography/Template:TheNameOfYourTemplate. I think it would be also worthwhile to establish an Assessment Project for WikiProject Pornography as well. With that in mind, I'll propose the following as a template: 1) That we choose a red "XXX" as our image (I can create one); and 2) That we use the following as our text in the infobox:

This article is part of WikiProject Pornography, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to porn stars and pornography. 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.

I can assist in setting up the Assessment Project portion of the Pornography Project, as well as the Talk page template (I know a good Wiki coder).

I feel pornography is as legitimate an art form as painting, and sexual performance as legitimate as any acting Bette Davis or Brad Pitt does. (Strike that Brad Pitt reference...) I think this would help us add a little legitimacy to our project, and garner porn some additiona legitimacy within Wikipedia and in the larger world. Any comments? Boos and hisses? Great cheers? - Tim1965 20:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Support. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to note: we actually already have a template: Template:Pornproject (which used to be Template:Pornstars). I'm all for modifying it or moving it to whatever name folks here think is most useful – but let's definitely modify the existing template (as opposed to creating a completely separate page), since that template is already up on a number of pages. Iamcuriousblue 21:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Is there a reason why it fell into disuse? (Pardon my lack of knowledge here...) - Tim1965 23:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • This isn't a very large Wikipedia:WikiProject in terms of participants, while it is quite active in terms of drama and current events. Something like Wikipedia: WikiProject Military history can take its time and work on century old subjects of undisputed notability. Even relatively minor subjects like Davout or Battle of Pea Ridge aren't going to either have much new information that needs to be added in the next few months, or even years, or get speedily deleted by anybody. So they can do a better job in terms of dotting the i's and crossing the t's. While this project is controversial by definition and most of our articles are subject to continuous spam and vandalism. In short, anyone who wants to improve "the system" around here is welcome. Good luck! We'll help where we can, but you should go ahead and start. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Assessment thoughts

From looking at Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Pornproject it looks like we have about 500 articles in our project. They're mostly porn stars, from the very recent time that this was Wikiproject:Porn Stars, so there are other articles on porn films or other related topics that could be added. (For example, I think History of erotic depictions would be very appropriate for the broadened project, and that, with Jenna Jameson, would be our two current WP:FAs.) Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment both go into great detail on Quality, but relatively little on Importance. I looked around at a few well organized projects to get an idea. Let me propose some basic Importance guidelines, and see if people agree or disagree.

• Top: 1 in 100 articles. That would be 5 porn stars, and a few others. For the 5 porn stars, I recommend the top 5 at the AVN list: (Ron Jeremy, Jenna Jameson, John Holmes, Tracy Lords, Linda Lovelace) as they seem to mostly match the #Key articles for Wikipedia 1.0 section, above, where we were asked to list our most important articles. Outside porn stars, I'd add Pornography itself, Hugh Hefner as the most famous pornographer, maybe a few others, but not many, keeping it at the 1 in 100 ratio. These articles would be on subjects famous within pornography and indisputably notable even outside pornography. In other words, many in depth articles and/or books from both mainstream and porn sources.
• High: a bit under 1 in 10 articles. That would probably be the rest of both the AVN list and the Key articles section, and a number of other. Subjects here would be famous within pornography, and at least somewhat known of even outside pornography. Example: Tera Patrick, Annabel Chong.
• Med: 4 in 10 articles - Either well known inside pornography and little known outside pornography (Example: Stephanie Swift, Jim South), or somewhat known outside pornography but not famous in pornography (Example: John Wayne Bobbitt, Marylin Star).
• Low: 5 in 10 articles - Not very well known inside or outside pornography. Most of the articles that barely squeaked by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion for borderline notability would be low importance.

--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Biography

Hi. Some time ago, overtures were made at Template talk:WPBiography about you starting a porn stars workgroup and sharing our template. The response was positive but you had some things to sort out, and nothing came of it. We at WPBio are all in favour of sharing our infrastructure with smaller, dedicated projects, so if you want to go ahead with that idea please return to the discussion. Cheers. --kingboyk 16:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you clarify or point us to exactly what would be involved? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The easiest answer would be to ask you to look at our template {{WPBiography}}, and at some of the other groups that have either joined with us (like WP:MUSICIANS) or created a taskforce underneath us (WP:FILMBIO). --kingboyk 17:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks like a big part of that is using article assessment, just as the above talk page section proposes - is that correct? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It's mainly about sharing infrastructure, of which assessment is a large part. I'm not aware that WPBIO has ever issued "mandates" to child projects or anything like that :), so there wouldn't be significant any loss of independence.

The original thread is at Template_talk:WPBiography#pornstar-work-group. I'll leave this with you now; if you wish to talk with us you can communicate at that page :) Cheers! --kingboyk 18:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Kascha Papillon

Can someone look at Kascha's article? I took out a bunch of stuff a few days ago that looked like garbage, and bad tone, very spammy references to work with someone named Carleena coincidentally added by User:Carleena (which I think is the same person under different usernames who has made a bunch of similar changes), so I cleaned it all up, and it all just got put back. The article from my last edit is probably what it should say, so can someone have an objective look? Brjatlick 02:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I just have time for a quick look. First thing that caught my eye is that the infobox wasn't set up right. I fixed that. Next thing that catches my eye is, there is no sourcing for the article. Someone should fix that. Third thing would be to put headings into the article. Hope that helps a little. Dekkappai 02:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I should have mentioned, Carleena-- Should you decide to source that article, you might want to avoid using Google as a research tool. Apparently some editors consider the use of Google as a means of finding sources to be objectionable... At least for some articles. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danielle Derek. Dekkappai 18:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

There were sources cited. Whoever it was made those changes to the article also deleted the sources. That strikes me as a downright vandal. But its really hard to write anything on a porn star without using google to find the info. Here is my last unvandalized version. Brjatlick 19:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I was just about to advise looking in the revision history - nothing is ever lost (or, rather, very rarely). Use what tools you like, and a Google search can be quite useful, just as a library can be. The point is a web search shouldn't be cited by itself, any more than you can cite, say, a big library. (Oh, there's some info on this person in the Library of Congress. Really. Go and look.) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I was being sarcastic about the Google searches, Brjatlick-- I tend to respond to absurd arguments (such as the one going on at that Afd) with sarcasm. Sarcasm is deprecated here, I know, but I can't help myself sometimes... I've re-added the sources. Feel free to put back any other good and sourced information that anyone else deletes without good reason. That is, indeed, a form of vandalism. Dekkappai 20:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I know the revision history is here, I just want a second opinion that going back to my last version is legit and not edit-warring, since I think this Carleena person is just spamming, but I don't know, maybe she's famous somewhere. But thanks, I am going back to that last version I did, and if the same vandalisms happen again I'll report it. Brjatlick 20:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Excaliburfilms.com links have to go

No, I'm not being a prude. First off, these are all commercial links that exist to sell things; it is comparable to linking to Amazon.com for book information, which is strongly discouraged. More importantly, by linking directly to pages we are diverting our readers from the required legal notices on the main page of the website - you know, the one that says you must be 21 to enter the site, that some of the content is illegal in certain places, that you will not redistribute the information, that you will not allow minors to view it, etc.

I am going to start by removing the information on the project page, and then removing links that are just sitting there as external links for the articles. I'll list below here the pages where Excaliburfilms.com has been used as a reference source, so that people will know these articles need re-referencing to other information. Risker 19:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact that a site has commercial content doesn't necessarily affect the validity of the information it presents. I count at least 20 advertisements on the New York Times front page.[1] I agree that where we can present the same information from a less commercial source, we should, but sometimes this is the best source available. See the #Links discussion right at the top of this page. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The key point is that for a significant portion of our readership, clicking on these links violates the site policy and applicable laws - and they have no way of finding out what the site policy/applicable law is, because the link provided on Wikipedia specifically does NOT include the statutory notices.

Finding a way to keep this site as a reference source, where people clicking the links MUST go through the main page (where the site policy is), could work. For example, the reference could say "Excalibur.com biography on (name of artist) without a direct link to the page.

I haven't removed any links that were being used as references in articles at this point. Risker 14:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the policies and laws about that are what you think they are. If they wanted to require we only link to their warning notices, they could. The web site could easily be configured not to let people in to the specific page without seeing the notice at least once. Here is an example, a link to an article on Salon.com that will make sure you see an ad at least once, but will let you come back to the page later without seeing the ad again.[2] --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you actually read the site use agreement? Please do so - unfortunately I am not in a position to post it here because the site is NSFW. Risker 16:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You must be 21 years of age or older to access the Excalibur Films web site. Misrepresenting your age in order to gain access to this site in order to view Adult Material may be a violation of local, state and federal law. If you are not 21 years old, you must disconnect from our site.

Access is prohibited to the following areas:

1. Any community, locale, area, county or state where Adult Material is specifically prohibited by law. 2. Any country outside of the United States of America where Adult Material is specifically prohibited by law.

NOTE: This list is not all-inclusive. You assume the actual responsibility for knowing the community standards within your area of access. If you are not sure if your community, locale, area, county or state prohibits Adult Material, exit now and find out. Thank you.

PLEASE READ AND ELECTRONICALLY 'SIGN' THE FOLLOWING CERTIFICATION IN ORDER TO ACCESS THIS SITE.

I, the undersigned, under penalties of perjury solemnly declare and affirm the following: 1. I am an adult, being at least 21 years of age and am allowed to view Adult Material.

2. I am not accessing this material to view Adult Material in order to use against the site operator or any person whomsoever in any conceivable manner.

3. I will not redistribute this material, including Adult Material to anyone nor will I permit any minor to see this material, or any other person who might find such material personally offensive.

4. I subscribe to the principles of the First Amendment which holds that free adult Americans have the right to decide for themselves what they will read and view without governmental interference.

5. I believe that such Adult Material, including Adult Material does not offend the standard of the community in which I live.

Nothing about "I will not link to any subpage of this site" that I can see. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, there is nothing that says one cannot provide a link to a subpage. BUT:

3. I will not redistribute this material, including Adult Material to anyone nor will I permit any minor to see this material, or any other person who might find such material personally offensive. (emphasis mine)

We know that a significant number of Wikipedia readers are under 21, or minors under their local laws. By directly linking to the page, we are not only permitting, we are encouraging any reader to "click the link." (I will assume that people who are offended by pornography will exit the article without clicking links.) Again, I come back to the fact that since the subpages do not have the site terms and statutory notices popping up before one can view them, our decision to use links to those subpages abrogates the agreement not to permit access to certain identified groups. Risker 19:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a bit of a stretch, reading things that aren't written. Note that they also allow subpages to be search engine indexed individually, which is also providing direct links bypassing the warning. If you still believe you're right, send them an email and ask specifically if they object to links to individual performers' pages on their site. If they say yes, post it here, and we'll encourage editors to comply. But let's not overassume until they specify. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

tattoos

Is listing a porn star's tattoos really that notable to be included on wikipedia? Look on most porn star articles, you might even see a whole section listing their tattoos. --Philip Laurence 22:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Depends. :-) In Jenna Jameson, the porn star article that reached Wikipedia:Featured article, we do mention her trademark "heart breaker" tattoo, but that's partly due to the fact that she got started through her boyfriend being a tattoo artist. We don't go into great detail on her others, but do give a comprehensive reference that shows off most of them.[3] Frankly, since a porn star's physical appearance and, umm, modifications, do have a noticeable influence on their career, I wouldn't say a cited sentence or two would be out of line. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment

A political activist who was also discovered to have been a performer in gay porn films in the 1990s, now has an article on Wikipedia: Matt Sanchez. There is debate on the talkpage as to how many of his videos should be listed in the article. I would appreciate any comments from members of this WikiProject, as to the best way to proceed. Thanks, Elonka 05:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Background:

Secondary sources list 38 videos with Sanchez's alter egos "Rod Majors" and "Pierre LaBranche." Some of these films are composites of scenes used in prior "original" productions. This is noted in the article on Sanchez; however, as secondary sources do not distinguish between composites and originals, it is impossible to separate them without violating Wikipedia's no original research rule.

Elonka has advocated a judgment test, i.e., looking through the list and evaluating from the titles which videos are original and which are not. At one point, she estimated 10 films were original, then she estimated seven or eight. Elonka has thus far ignored my queries on how she arrived at those estimates. Sanchez, for his part, has given varying answers in interviews, ranging from 12 to "a couple" of videos.

At it now stands, the article sets 1995 as a sort of cutoff point past which no new original films with Sanchez were released. There is no verification for that date, but Elonka has kept it in the article notwithstanding being told of the lack of verification. Through 1995, secondary sources show 25 videos with Majors/LaBranche (Sanchez) in the cast. My judgment tells me that as many as 20 of the 25 films made through 1995, and as many as 25 of the total 38 titles, are originals. But I acknowledge this is an idiosyncratic judgment, and that my guesstimate cannot be included in an article without violating the no original research rule.

Therefore, I believe that, since all 38 titles are verifiable through secondary sources, they should be listed at the end of the article. Also, the compilation issue, already noted in the body of the article, could be included as a note on the list. Sanchez's conflicting answers should also be noted.

As a side note, I would strongly disagree with the proposal to limit pornographic filmographies to six titles. Wikipedia claims to be an "encyclopedia," and as such it should be encyclopedic, i.e., complete. If someone has a career as a porn actor, then his or her complete filmography is relevant, so long as it can be verified. Anything less transforms Wikipedia from a reference work into a collection of feature stories.

Who is to judge which six movies to be included, and which 32 movies to be omitted? And what of someone who peformed in eight movies, as opposed to someone else who performed in 220 movies? The distinctions are highly relevant for a variety of reasons, one being that the number of titles gives a sense of the totality and nature of someone's work, and another being that a future researcher might have a specific (and currently unpredictable) interest in a particular title. To omit verified, relevant information is to undercut the very nature of an encyclopedia, and to do so only for porn actors is a direct violation of Wikipedia's purported "neutrality." Pwok 07:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you see the part of the earlier discussion that mentions that prolific male mainstream performers like Ron Jeremy and Tony Tedeschi have starred in thousands of films? Good luck finding an error in titles number 674 through 682; I'll bet their most dedicated fan hasn't seen them all, I'll bet they don't know them all themselves. Encyclopedic does not mean "exhaustive", just "comprehensive". We want to give a good overview - a list of the most important titles plus a count does that. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the article and the way it does now, listing half a dozen in the text, seems OK. The fact that it makes bullet points for them is no so much, since redundant, and implies that these are all of them. I recommend saying that this is a representative, not a complete, listing, giving a number, and a link or reference to a site that does claim to be more complete. It doesn't seem that he is a notable performer per se, he is a notable for the fact that had been a performer. In that way, our coverage is similar to the way the news articles that cover him mention it - they list a few representative films, but not all of them. I don't think guessing whether or not they were compilations is as important as just seeing that they aren't undue weight in the article. Our local gay film expert seems to have vanished, so unfortunately we don't have as much subject matter expertise as might be hoped for. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If someone starred in thousands of porn flicks and it could be verified, not only should all of it go into Wikipedia but I think the Guiness Book of World Records might be interested. But seriously, given that there are no space limitations online, I don't see a single valid reason for abridging a verified list. Stick it at the end of an article; that way, it won't interrupt narrative flow. In fact, this is exactly how Wikipedia has treated Charles Casper Peyton, a/k/a Jeff Stryker, in its article. To argue that his filmography impedes narrative flow would be absurd.

The only motive I can imagine for abridgment of these listings is squeamishness. Putting aside the purported "neutrality" principle that Wikipedia has proclaimed, there are other ways to handle that without censoring verified facts. For example, an actor's filmography could be placed on a separate Wikipedia page needing an extra click, along with a caution that the material is explicit. On my website about Matthew A. Sanchez, that's how I've handled this issue not just with respect to his filmography (see "Matt's Video Epics") but to other explicit material.

In the case of Sanchez, he on on the record having given conflicting information about his porn career. He now seeks to minimize his involvement and mischaracterize the videos. In his most recent comment on the subject, he said that he peformed in "a couple" porn movies. While the exact number of films cannot be verified without breaking Wikipedia's no-original-research rule, I would say that a quite conservative estimate places the number of original performances at no fewer than 15.

In all, he appears in the cast list of 38 movies. That's verified through secondary sourcces. Currently, the Wikipedia article omits both the titles and the total number, while quoting Sanchez's statement that some films are composites. In my opinion, this contributes to the misimpression that he has sought to create through minimizing his involvement in porn.

Separately, the article mischaractizes Sanchez's porn videos by saying that they "were primarily targeted towards the gay and bisexual market," when in fact they were exclusively targeted to that market. Sanchez has given conflicting statements about that issue as well, including making what appear to be false claims that he appeared in heterosexual porn.

If you step back from the individual issues and take a wider view, we have a situation where the subject of a Wikipedia has sought to misstate and mischaracterize the truth of his career, which in Sanchez's case is why he has a Wikipedia profile to begin with. Now, if the truth can't be verified that's one thing; but in this case the facts has been verified. To omit verified fact is, to me, flatly bizarre.

To say that listing a porn actor's filmography gives it "undue weight" is also bizarre; I see no one suggesting, for instance, that Katherine Hepburn's filmography be abridged. The difference between her and Traci Lord is that Hepburn acted in non-porn movies. I am a major fan of "The Philadelphia Story," but that's a personal opinion. If Wikipedia includes filmographies -- which it absolutely should -- then it should include all of them.

Someone could argue that Matthew Sanchez doesn't deserve a Wikipedia biography, and I might or might not agree. But that decision has already been made; to publish an abridged biography is simply wrong. Remember, I'm not talking about including the names of every baseball card he collected. His filmography is integral to his story, as it is integral to the story of every actor of any kind. The frequent citation of Wikipedia's rule that it is not an "indiscriminate collector of information" to justify the censorship of verified, relevant information is downright Orewellian.

No one can predict which title or titles will interest a future researcher, and why. If the writer of an article chooses to highlight some titles that he or she feels are emblematic or representative of the whole, that's fine as long as it's neutral and verified. But if the entire list is known and verified, an "encyclopedia" that omits the information is a collection of feature articles merely masquerading as an encyclopedia.

Finally, I would note that I say what I said about feature stories as a former journalist who wrote hundreds and hundreds of feature articles. The difference between a feature story and an encyclopedia entry is that a feature story doesn't pretend to be a reference work. It is a selection of information to suit a temporary purpose, usually to satisfy a readership's passing curiousity about someone or something in the news. It is constrained by a multitude of factors.

An encyclopedia entry is different; it should be as definitive and as complete as you can make it. One thing that the Internet can do that a traditional paper-and-ink encyclopedia cannot do is dispense with space constraints. If the day comes when someone appears in 10,000 porn videos, I see no reason not to list every last one of them, if for no other reason than that this fact alone will make that person famous and probably pretty rich, too. Pwok 00:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to include the following sentence or something like it in the article?

"The Internet Adult Film Database (IAFD) lists 36 films for Rod Majors and identifies 12 of them as being compilations."

As for number of films in filmographies, I agree that complete listings should be available. If an additional article needs to be created (or even additional articles) so be it. Information about an artist's work is not "indiscriminate information"—it is information that is an important component of any article about the artist. Whether you are comfortable with what the artist created or not. How would it be possible to pick and choose which films will be listed and still uphold Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy? Who gets to decide which films are listed? If all the films are listed, who gets to decide which ones get deleted?—75.58.44.122 12:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Pwok: a modern porn flick can take only 1 day to film.Wall Street Journal Given that any given actor probably doesn't appear in most scenes - they tend to focus more on the ladies - an average of 1 day per film for them is not an unreasonable estimate. An actor who merely comes in to work 5 days a week will appear in hundreds of films in a year; also most of these scenes later appear in compilations. Now, frankly, the work ethic of most of these performers is not the highest (as with heavy metal or punk rock musicians, drug abuse is almost assumed) so most don't work 5 days per week; but some do. That means a thousand films in a 10 or 20 year career isn't common, but not a record setter by any means.

75...: yes, I'd support giving a cited number. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Please cite the Wikipedia core principles that say "work ethic" and "time spent per recording" are criteria for including their verified titles. Whether or not 1,000 videos or 10,000 is worthy of a world record in tangential; my mention of it was by way of a quip. I thought I made that pretty clear, but I guess not. I shall remember to be more literal in the future. And what does drug abuse have to do with anything? Wikipedia is allegedly "neutral." Are you suggesting that lists of works by drug abusers should be abridged for that reason?

If so, then please tell me which of Edgar Allen Poe's stories you'd nominate for deletion from his list of works. Do you think it's time to shorten the discographty for Miles Davis, a jazz musician and heroin addict? Wikipedia lists 112 recordings, including DVDs. I note that Miles Davis's compilations are broken out separately in his discography.

Should the recordings that Miles Davis made while addicted to heroin, or while his "work ethic" didn't otherwise meet your standards, be deleted from Wikipedia's list? And what about other musicians and artists? Delete their works made when they were thought (or even verified) to be using drugs illegally? How about if the drug use was legal but merely irresponsible, as when Janis Joplin swigged from a bottle of Wild Turkey while performing? Should the live recording of that perforance be deleled from the list of the titles of her works? I searched the Wikipedia principles and didn't find one related to drug abused. Maybe I overlooked it; please point me there so I may behold it in its full glory.

No, I think the real problem on Wikipedia is squeamishness about pornography. Some people have a major problem with listing titles like, "Squirt Me, Mister: The Cock Chronicles." I understand and to a degree sympathize, which is why I'd be all in favor of a warning of explicit language and an extra click. But deleting verified titles directly contradicts Wikipedia's so-called "neutrality" pillar; it is censorship, plain and simple. Censorship is something that Wikipedia alleges that it does not engage in. Principles (or so-called "pillars") are tested when they are difficult to live by, not when compliance comes easy.

When it comes to limiting a pornographic filmography to a subset of verified titles, there is no explanation other than squeamishness, and its handmaiden censorship, that holds up to even casual scrutiny. Pwok 00:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

with all due respect

No offense but....the concept a project to improve pornography pages made me giggle. Fusion7 17:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

That's nice. Iamcuriousblue 17:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not a "project to improve pornography pages." It's a project to censor them. Pwok 03:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sexual orientation

Is there any kind of policy about the information given about a porn actor or actresses sexual orientation, particularly in the Template:Female adult bio infobox or in the Categories list at the bottom of the article. There seems to be a tendency to label every female adult performer as "bisexual" simply because they do both m/f and f/f scenes. This doesn't necessarily reflect a real-life sexual preference, though. I'm also highly mistrustful of porn-industry interviews where women describe themselves as "bisexual", which just comes across as PR to me. (I feel similarly about the automatic description of gay male porn industry stars as "gay". In real life, they might be bi or even simply "gay for pay".) It seems to me that the default should be not to list sexual preference at all unless there's a citable source for a porn star describing themself as having that preference, and that that reference should be something more substantial than an interview in Hustler. Opinions? Iamcuriousblue 17:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone's sexual orientation is unverifiable, but their sexual behavior is verifiable. To quote Richard Nixon: "Watch what we do, not what we say." Pwok 05:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

No, actually somebody's sexual orientation is verifiable if they've made public statements as to what they're actual sexual orintation is. (To which I would add, in a forum where they're not expected to give stock answers, such as a lot of the porn media.) Otherwise, I don't think statements about the sexual orientation of a porn actor is at all relevant. And what does the statement even tell us about porn actresses, anyway? Most of them have sex with both men and women on camera. Saying an actress is "bisexual" doesn't tell you much. Plus, its inaccurate, implying that she's bisexual in everyday life, which barring verifiable statements.

Actually, what I propose is that "orientation" should be replaced by "genres". Genres could include multiple entries and include boy-girl, girl-girl, BDSM, etc. – not an exhaustive list, of course, but simply what an actress "specializes" in. So for Justine Joli, it would read "genres = girl-girl, BDSM". That's far more relevant information about her as a porn actress, IMO. Iamcuriousblue 16:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Their performance genres should at least be listed in addition to their orientation. I agree that PR has a lot to do with what a porn performer might say. Joie de Vivre 16:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Orientation should probably be kept as a field, since fields are optional anyway. However, I don't think that field should actually be used unless there's some info about the actor's real-life sexual orientation. Peter G Werner 11:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

People lie about their sexual orientation. I think the general practice with respect to porn actors ought to be to focus on what they did. If they made statements about their sexual orientation, and those statements have been consistent, then I'd report them as being gay, straight, bi or whatever they said they were. But if there was any controversy about it, or contradiction by the subject of an article, I think the correct thing to do is to report the controversy and/or contradictory statements and cite as verified fact the only truly verifiable thing, the actions. Or to put it differently, if someone says they are straight or gay or whatever, that doesn't necessarily make it so. Pwok 01:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd put more value in their self-description when it comes to sexual orientation that basing it on what they do onscreen. Peter G Werner 11:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I can agree with both of those - there doesn't seem to be a discrepancy there. :-) Yes, it is important what they self-report as, it is also important what they do. Note, however, for most people the whole thing shouldn't be worth more than a couple of sentences. There are so many well known examples of every orientation imaginable, that it's usually just not that big a deal. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right about the text of the article. What I'm talking about is the automatic use of "orientation=bisexual" in the "Female adult bio" infobox for every actress who's done both m/f and f/f scenes. (Which is most porn actresses.) And in some cases even adding "Bisexual people" or "Bisexual actors" under categories. I think that isn't a good practice, and when I'm editing bios, I'm inclined to remove such info if it isn't backed up by any other references or supporting information in the text of the bio. Iamcuriousblue 18:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a purported "verifiability" pillar. As much as I think Wikipedia's "pillars" and "principles" are shams that are ignored whenever convenient, I thought I'd point it out just for the hell of it. Sexual orientation isn't verifiable, but behavior is. What you "put more value in" is irrelevant. Wikipedia has a purported "neutrality" pillar, too. Pwok 18:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You're either ignoring or misreading the point of my argument. (Or just being argumentative for its own sake, which I'm kind of getting the impression of from some of your posts.) Onscreen acts *are not* the same as overall sexual orientation – that's the point I've been trying to get across. I'm trying to come up with a way of giving porn acotor bios greater accuracy, hence the distinction between one's "sexual orientation" (which I consider a real-life biographical detail) versus describing what kind of roles they take as an actress. I think the obvious parallel is with non-porn actresses – Gina Gershon has played both lesbian and straight roles in various movies – nobody describes her as "bisexual" based on the roles she's played. Also, when you state that "sexual orientation isn't verifiable", I think you're totally confused about what is meant by "verifiable" in Wikipedia. (I think you're confusing verifiability with original research, actually.) Self-reported sexual orientation in a non-dubious published citable source is most certainly verifiable. And for the actors where you can't find that information? In those cases its not relevant. Iamcuriousblue 18:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

People who are being argued against tend to regard their adversary as "argumentative." So be it. As I've written, if a porn actor's sexual orientation isn't a matter of dispute, then I agree that their self-reporting should be accepted. But if, for example, if a woman is on videotape having sex with another woman but claims to be heterosexual, the claim shouldn't be accepted as fact. It should be mentioned, along with the pictures that depict otherwise. In such a case, the only verifiable element is the video. Fact is, people lie about their sexual orientation. Happens all the time. Pwok 19:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Whatever – I'm not the only person who you've been argumentative toward and frankly, I think there are elements of trolling in a lot of what you write. But anyway, as for this specific debate, this idea is just silly: "if a woman is on videotape having sex with another woman but claims to be heterosexual, the claim shouldn't be accepted as fact." Has it occurred to you that the woman in the video is in fact playing a role? That its not "evidence" against her self-identification as heterosexual. And this thing about adding the pictures "that depict otherwise" – is this Wikipedia or the National Enquirer? Anyway, I'm not sure if I want to engage your argument any further, because it strikes me that you're just trying to be inflamatory rather than making a serious proposal about guidelines for this project. Iamcuriousblue 20:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not The National Enquirer not is it a public relations tool. At least it shouldn't be. It's an encyclopedia, or that's what it claims to be. As such, to the greatest degree possible it ought to be factual, verified, neutral and comprehensive, the latter constrained only by relevance. In other words, an article about Charles Peyton, a/k/a Jeff Stryker, need not list the contents of his butterfly collection, but it should list his videos on the same basis as any other actor's videos are listed, porn or otherwise.

As to his sexual orientation, if Mr. Peyton/Stryker were to (claim to) become an evangelical Christian and declare that he is not gay and never was gay, but was only "playing a role," this should not be accepted as fact. Rather, the article should note his claims along with his behavior. The reader can decide what "evidence" to accept. Not you. The reader. Nothing personal, but your beliefs are completely beside the point. Or they ought to be.

All that would be verifiable in such a case would be Mr. Peyton/Stryker's performances and his statements; whether or not he actually was or is gay, straight, bisexual, trisexual, omnisexual, pansexual or asexual or in fact an other-sexual space alien from Neptune, would be unverifiable. It would be opinion, which along with a buck and a half will procure a tall coffee of the day at Starbucks.

Whether or not I am "argumentative" is irrelevant here, and you know it. Or at least you ought to. After all, I might want to claim that you and others are obstinate, dilatory and dishonest. But I don't do so because it's not relevant. Edit: What I do think is relevant, though, is you and some others consistently argue in bad faith. A prime example is the repeated and intentional misrepresentation of Wikipedia's notability rule to justify censorship of article content, when in fact the notability rule explicitly states that it does not apply to article content. Pwok 22:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Pwok, another policy here is civility, I'd appreciate if you could work harder at that. Anyway, getting back to orientation, I agree with the above statement that the role that someone plays in a work of fiction, has no bearing on the actor's sexuality. For example, I would hope that we wouldn't rate the sexuality of the actors from the film Brokeback Mountain, based on the actions of the characters in the film! Just because someone plays a gay character, doesn't mean that he is gay. Fans routinely may try to project the actions of a character, onto the actor who plays that character, but that's just fantasy. --Elonka 23:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Elonka, I find you argumentative. I think there are elements of trolling in a lot of what you write. But anyway, as for this specific debate, your point about Brokeback Mountain is silly. It was not a pornographic film. If Heath Ledger's erect penis had been shown entering Jake Gyllenhall's rectum, then any biography of either actor would be duty-bound to take note, because that would be fundamentally different than an on-screen kiss and simulated sex. Anyway, I'm not sure if I want to engage your argument any further, because it strikes me that you're just trying to be inflamatory rather than making a serious proposal about guidelines for this project. Pwok 05:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

As Elonka points out, a person's on-screen persona's sexuality might be quite different from their off-screen one. Let me point out one example from television: Amanda Bearse is openly lesbian, yet the character she played on Married… with Children was firmly heterosexual, even after Bearse came out as a lesbian (Bearse came out in 1993, Married ended in 1997). Tabercil 00:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This is pornography we're talking about. If a woman puts her tongue into another woman's vagina on screen, or a man allows another man to ejaculate into his mouth, yet then goes on to claim to be an evangelical Christian who was never homosexual, I think the claims with respect to religion and sexual orientation should be treated as claims (and regarded by me as good ol' American cheesy crapola), while the behavior itself should be treated as fact. Pwok 05:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

An on-screen sexual performance is profoundly different in nature from private sexual behavior. Performances are not an appropriate factor by which to judge a person's sexual orientation. The financial incentive alone is reason to be particularly critical. Joie de Vivre 00:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't argued that someone's on-screen behavior should determine how their sexual orientation is described. I have argued that, in cases where someone's self-description is at odds with their performance in a pornographic video, the self-description should be treated as a claim and the video should be treated as a fact. Pwok 05:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

There are a whole list of issues with that claim:

1. I watched Actor X in a movie, and he goes to a Catholic church and takes communion. Clearly he's a Catholic, despite whatever he says. :-)
2. It's drawing a conclusion from primary sources, therefore clearly Wikipedia:original research.
3. If someone's behaviour a limited number of times determined their sexuality, we wouldn't be listing hardly anyone as homosexual. (Because, frankly, almost all homosexuals have had at least a few heterosexual experiences, "to make sure" or whatever.)
4. Everybody and their brother is against you on this one, Pwok.

But the good news is that almost all pornographic actresses will actually state that they are bisexual, in interviews and on their web sites. Perhaps they're only doing it so their fans will think their performances are "more real" - who knows - but in any case, that statement is sufficient, just cite it. Most of our porn star articles do list a few interviews and/or web sites, and this question is usually fairly prominent, so easy to find. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that, when it comes to sexual orientation, you can't necessarily take someone's word for it. There are numerous instances where people lie, and do so for all kinds of reasons. Not only that, but the whole concept of sexual orientation lends itself to varying good-faith descriptions and interpretations.

When you have someone like, for example, Alan Ginsburg, who was consistent throughout his adult life in describing himself as gay, and for whom all other verifiable evidence supports the statements, he should be labeled as gay in a Wikipedia article. Anything else would be dishonest. But, when it comes to porn actors, as a general rule I'd be inclined to shy away from labeling sexual orientation in favor of labeling the nature of their performances.

What they did on screen is verifiable. What is also verifiable, at least in many cases, is how the actor labeled him- or herself. As a general rule, that should be included in an article as a verified statement, as opposed to being included as a factual label. If there is controversy or contradiction or change, then actions are facts and statements are claims. The orientation itself, at least when disputed, is non-verifiable.

Handling it the way I've suggested preserves neutrality, and it serves the goal of accuracy. Sometimes, you are most accurate by implicitly acknowledging that which you cannot know. That way, if someone wants to say that he was never gay, and the quote can be verified, fine. But at the same time, an article should note what they individual is depicted doing on film, as well as saying about the issue at other times and/or places, so long as it's verified. Pwok 00:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this is essentially an argument over the definition of "sexual orientation". Consider the following aspects of sexuality:

• Sexual behavior - who you have sex with
• Romantic behavior - who you date, who you love
• Attraction - who you think is hot
• Identification - how you describe your sexual orientation

I have observed many arguments where some people seem to be convinced that "sexual orientation" always includes all of these things, and that they all must align. Thus, if a man only has sex with other men, but doesn't describe himself as "gay", then he's lying. But these things don't always align. Especially in an industry where people have sex for pay, people have sex with people they aren't really attracted to or would want to date, and sex they don't particularly enjoy. Some people have weird apparent conflicts, where say, a man will seek out sex with other men, but refuse to identify as "gay". In some cases, that's an honest difference of opinion. Many people find labels like "gay" and "lesbian" and "straight" and "bi" and "queer" and "dyke" to have cultural connotations and requirements. Anyway, short of an intrusive brain scan, people's internal lustful and romantic feelings are mostly unverifiable by Wikipedia standards. I think the best thing is for the encyclopedia to report on behavior and self-identification separately, where sources exist for either. So a porn star infobox might list: "Performs with: Men and women; Identifies as: Straight". A biography might also list notable people they have been in a relationship with, if confirmed by both parties or a reliable third-party source. Identification should not be confused with some sort of underlying orientation; self-identification is verifiable as a fact (not a claim) by quotations from the subject. Readers can make up their own mind about what people "really" are, accept that the world is complicated, or whatever suits them.-- Beland 06:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)