Delicious carbuncle (talk | contribs) →Creation of new articles for gay porn performers: still waiting for more opinions |
|||
Line 424:
:::::If you expect other editors to make informed comments, please explain what a "porn site" is and why banning such links would not be a contravention of NOTCENSORED. You have failed to identify an article where such links were considered "unacceptable", it seems pointless to create new rules for non-existent problems.
:::::As for your belief that biographies of gay porn actors are welcome, you have already stated you consider them a "special" case (requiring more control than BLPs for murderers) and we have seen a recent spate of pre-1990s porn star BLPs where awards in their names could not be identified being deleted purely on this basis, regardless of other sources being produced. The fact that very few documented awards existed in the 1980s has not been accepted by persistent deletionists as a rationale to take a less hard-line approach with interpreting PORNBIO. [[User:Ash|Ash]] ([[User talk:Ash|talk]]) 00:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
::::::I'm going to wait for comments from other editors rather than respond to you directly since you seem to be taking this as some sort of attack. Inflammatory rhetoric and distortions of my words aren't going to help us reach agreement. [[User:Delicious carbuncle|Delicious carbuncle]] ([[User talk:Delicious carbuncle|talk]]) 00:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) That looks like a lot of "'''special'''" requirements you are making up. I am increasingly uncomfortable with the "special" interpretation of BLP, V, N... that some editors have created to set a special high quality bar for gay porn actors compared to any other kind of biographical article. Such literal interpretations and "special" treatment seems to be purging this topic off Wikipedia and neatly pandering to prejudice making an effective censorship. The speedy deletion of [[Paul Carrigan]] (the second most credited actor in the history of gay pornography) is my best example to date of the tendency to let Wiki-lawyering over-rule common-sense for this topic.
|
Revision as of 00:32, 20 February 2010
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 7 sections are present. |
RfC Use of the Adam Gay Video Directory as a reliable source
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Is the Adam Gay Video Directory (in its various editions; eg. OCLC 422131336, OCLC 227972053, OCLC 38084116, OCLC 38083956) suitable as a reliable source to confirm inclusion of a pornography actor on the List of male performers in gay porn films? A significant number of entries rely on this catalogue as an independent source of information.—Ash (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- I have posted a notice of this discussion at WP:RSN. LadyofShalott 20:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- A request for closure by an independent editor has been posted at Editor assistance/Requests Ash (talk) 22:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Support - Using a simple search on Google Books, I note that the following use this directory as a source and as the authors include well established academics I would recommend following their judgement:
- Kendall, Christopher N. (2005), Gay male pornography: an issue of sex discrimination, UBC Press, ISBN 9780774810777,
- LaGuardia, Cheryl; Katz, Bill; Katz, Linda Sternberg (2003), Magazines for Libraries (12 ed.), Bowker, ISBN 9780835245418
- Williams, Linda (2004), Porn studies, Duke University Press, ISBN 9780822333128
- Barnard, Ian (2004), Queer race: cultural interventions in the racial politics of queer theory, Peter Lang, p. 40, ISBN 9780820470887
- Hamamoto, Darrell Y.; Liu, Sandra (2000), Countervisions: Asian American film criticism, Temple University Press, ISBN 9781566397766
- —Ash (talk) 22:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- I suggest that if there are no objections raised within 7 days then WP:SILENCE applies.—Ash (talk) 13:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- —Ash (talk) 22:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- No evidence that anyone treats this publication as WP-reliable source for factual information. The citations provided show no more than that the publication is used to describe characteristics of the market, in the same way that Flat Earth journals may be cited to describe the beliefs of flat-earthers. Quoting reviews to demonstrate what is found appealing in the market is not the same as using the magazine as a source for factual information about living persons. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Making emotive comparisons to the beliefs of flat-earthers does not help validate your view. In direct contradiction to your statement are the real-world facts. I am looking right now at "Porn studies" and "Countervisions", they use the AGVD precisely for "a source for factual information about living persons", not just market characteristics (taking the example further, in "Porn Studies" p.233, Williams uses it as the only reliable source to define Brandon Lee as a porn star, which is the whole point of how the source is used in this article under discussion).—Ash (talk) 15:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment In what way is the Directory being used as a reliable source to confirm inclusion of a pornography actor on the List of male performers in gay porn films? Is it being used to verify credits for actors already deemed notable by other sources? That would seem fine. Or is it being used to establish notability for actors? In that case, what criteria does the book use for inclusion of videos/actors? If it's every man who's appeared in gay porn film, and/or every gay porn film, that would be much too broad a reference to use for notability. Also, is there any relation to the (I think now defunct) Adam Film World Video Directory? Шизомби (talk) 10:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- The AGVD has the same author and publisher as the AGWVD you refer to (see J. C. Adams). Though the publication you refer to may not be recently re-published, previous editions may still be suitable as a source for information. I agree with your note that appearance in such a directory does not necessarily demonstrate notability, the issue arose due to such footnotes being automatically deleted as an editor thought that it should be dismissed as a source.—Ash (talk) 09:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. Besides the references above, J.C. Adams' "Adams Report" for radvideo.com and the AGVD were also cited in articles by Jeffrey Escoffier in the Journal of Homosexuality and Qualitative Sociology and in a paper for a Rutgers University sociology graduate student conference http://sociology.rutgers.edu/DOCUMENTS/conf_papers/Meunier_Etienne.pdf http://sociology.rutgers.edu/constructingknowledges.html. Language Log cites it[1] but for other reasons. Pornography and Sexual Representation: A Reference Guide Volume II by Joseph W. Slade says "For information on currently popular directors, the scholar must consult Adult Film World and Adult Video News" (676) and "Adult Film World directories of heterosexual and gay films are also useful" (670). This is going a bit afield, but kind of interesting, regarding the eight member ("Uh huh huh huh") Resale Activities Board of Review of the United States Department of Defense created by Rep. Paul Broun's Military Honor and Decency Act, "Anti-porn groups decry exchange sale policy" http://www.navytimes.com/benefits/stores/military_magazines_070911w/ it had found the Adam Film Guide and Adam Gay Video to be sexually explicit http://prhome.defense.gov/docs/DoD%20Resale%20Activities%20Board%20of%20Review%20Recommendations.pdf See also here http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/resaleboard1.html (not the most reliable site, admittedly). I'm not really sure why the Pentagon thought a review board to review pornography to determine if it is pornography was (1) a good idea (2) a good use of money and manpower. It's also curious that Adam Gay Video, Lesbian Licks, Lesbian Letters, etc. had apparently been being sold in military exchange services, commissaries and U.S. Navy ships' stores up until that point. And a queer horror movie like "Curse of the Queerwolf" was determined not to be sexually explicit and thus OK to keep selling to the military. The reviewal process is further rendered silly by the fact that the stores were asked to submit for review material they were selling that they thought was pornographic. So pornography, that had been determined to be pornography, was then determined to be pornography. I wonder if they read and watch things all the way through? Together or separately? Single-sex or co-ed board? Шизомби (talk) 12:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Proposal:Remove red link entries
I proposed this in the AfD, and my opinion is still the same. I think all red-link entries in this list should be removed not only for BLP concerns but also to have a more discriminatory list. When dealing with a matter as sensitive as this we have to take extreme caution when listing names and we must back up these names with more than a mention or an award.
For example, suppose my name is Joe Romero (sharing with a red-link entry on this list). I'm just an average guy with an average life. With what is written in this article, how could any acquaintance, job interviewer, etcetra not know that I am the Joe Romero who won "Best oral scene" at the Gay Erotic Video Awards? If my name was Steve Cruz (sharing with a blue-link entry) I would be in the clear because the Steve Cruz on this list has an article mentioning that he was born in 1972, is 5'5/145, and is working for Raging Stallion Studios. There's more than enough information given to avoid BLP problems from both the Steve Cruz we mention and the other Steve Cruz's in the world.
Entries without blue links are a focal point for controversy and are not appropriate per our BLP policy, and I propose that they are removed, preserving the notable blue-link entries. Afterwards, the list would be kept clean of red-links through constant editing. ThemFromSpace 09:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Does your statement mean that you would not have a problem with an entry if it was dis-ambiguous?—Ash (talk) 09:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure which redlinks are disambiguous. Can you give me an example of one? A link to a guys picture or background history would probably be ok, but so far I'm just seeing links to lists of award-winners. Having a name cited as an award winner without any other information about him is really contentious. ThemFromSpace 09:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- The example of Tony Capucci above is probably a good one. Using the googletest there does not appear to be any other notable Tony Capucci that would be confused with this porn star. In this case a link to the newspaper article about being cast in Cohen's film and a link to an index of porn film credits seems unambiguous. If there were some other Tony Capucci that were non-notable then in the Wikipedia sense there is no confusion as Wikipedia does not have articles for non-notable people. If you really wanted to ensure no future confusion you would link to Tony Capucci (porn star).
- Before getting too bogged down, the point I'm making is that if there is a consensus to enforce the removal of red links from this list (as discussed before, a rule not enforced for all featured lists) then the rationale would not be purely on the basis of disambiguation (or even the absence of a WP article as this is not a confirmation of non-notability). As there are always exceptions to WP guidance, perhaps we need a formal wider RfC to get a credible current consensus on the issue of red-links specifically for this list?—Ash (talk) 10:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Your suggestion is both sensible and unrealistic. During an alleged 5 month clean-up between AfDs, it wasn't done. In the most recent clean-up prompted by the most recent AfD, it was discussed, agreed to, and still not done. Even if it were to be completed now, there is no reason to expect that any future red links will be added in the correct format. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure which redlinks are disambiguous. Can you give me an example of one? A link to a guys picture or background history would probably be ok, but so far I'm just seeing links to lists of award-winners. Having a name cited as an award winner without any other information about him is really contentious. ThemFromSpace 09:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support - thank you for following up from the AfD. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Would anybody object if I went ahead and removed these? Given the nature of the previous AfD I'm surprised this proposal hasn't recieved more attention. ThemFromSpace 01:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- I still do as was spelled out previously. This is a BLP issue, we don't want want the wrong wikilinks re-added again as happens on a regular basis and we want a clear picture of the gaps in our coverage in this area. This is the _only_ list covering this area and is still being overhauled from six months ago. In that time we've gone from just a list of names to start to clarify why someone would be considered notable. We are not in a rush but meanwhile we should work to ensure that if someone wants to start an article it is at least at the right title and no longer points to someone else. Addressing the hyped fear that someone with an identical name would have an article written about them is still an easy issue to address - we simply disambiguate one or both article titles. We do this all the time and it's considered pretty common editing practice. As pointed out previously this article is at the intersection of two areas that remain in flux - how to best present lists in areas of culturally taboo areas and what should be the standards of notability for pornographic entertainers. These decisions should not be solely addressed on a localized list level but this list can evolve into demonstrating how a list in a taboo area can still be a good and encyclopedic article and serve our readers. -- Banjeboi 15:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Given the support for the removal of red links expressed by several editors in the most recent AfD and the paucity of significant objection here, as well as the lack of progress in cleaning up the article, I'm going to start removing red links. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- In what way is your unilateral statement a consensus? You could raise a wider RfC rather than assuming SILENCE applies due to a lack of response on this talk page.Ash (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think common sense and WP:BOLD should be applied here. Reds add nothing to lists and seem distract from real information. raseaCtalk to me 21:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- I wasn't assuming that silence equals consensus, but my reading of the comments in the AfD is that it removal of red links was fairly widely supported even if those editors did not express their opinion here. We are unlikely to be able to address any of the sourcing and other issues so long as the page is so large and unwieldy.
Ash, you have stated that you have no strong opinion about removal of red links, so your objections seem somewhat obstructionist at this point.Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delicious carbuncle, I do apologise for expressing an opinion that differs from yours. I did not understand that this constitutes being "obstructionist", I guess most other wikipedians automatically defer to your wisdom. Perhaps you could supply a diff for where I state that I "have no strong opinion about removal of red links", at the moment all I can see of my comments are requests for a consensus and two suggestions that an RfC might be appropriate. Perhaps you believe that a AfD discussion is a healthy substitute for an RfC? Ash (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- My apologies, I was confusing you with user:Hobit and have struck the remark. Please drop the sarcastic tone. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delicious carbuncle, I do apologise for expressing an opinion that differs from yours. I did not understand that this constitutes being "obstructionist", I guess most other wikipedians automatically defer to your wisdom. Perhaps you could supply a diff for where I state that I "have no strong opinion about removal of red links", at the moment all I can see of my comments are requests for a consensus and two suggestions that an RfC might be appropriate. Perhaps you believe that a AfD discussion is a healthy substitute for an RfC? Ash (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Ash: yes. Themfromspace: why not go ahead and let the current RfC run its course and then if someone wants to start another arguing for the inclusion of vast, pointless lists then let them? raseaCtalk to me 22:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Cool, I guess that means that we can look forward to editors reverting each other BOLD-ly and then trying to reach a consensus when that fails. Ash (talk) 22:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support themfromspace's proposal.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Still oppose. Despite the unique and novel interpretation by a few editors the entries recently removed, and reverted actually meet Wikipedia's notability inclusion for pornographic performers. That they systematically target this content to remove content and delete articles then have the nerve to suggest that even a mention of these performers needs to be removed is ridiculous. This is the only list for performers in gay male pornography and removing red-linked entries compromises Wikipedia's coverage in this area. The deletion discussion was sadly over-inflated with non-concerns about a wikilink going to the wrong article - that was the point of the whole arm-flailing tour from one admin board to the next - and thus several other editors worked through each entry to ensure that wikilinks went to the correct article or were disambiguated so as to help ensure if someone used a redlink here to create an article it would already be disambiguated to distinguish from other biographies whether BLP or someone who had died. No, I'm afraid this fails the duck test as just editors trying to delete information because they don't like it. Do we really have to change the article title to state and also those who have won major porn awards or are otherwise notable by Wikipedia's guidelines in this area? I hope not. -- Banjeboi 11:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Benjiboi, you continually show yourself to be insensitive to the concerns about BLPs that are not only shared by most other editors, but articulated in policy. You have singlehandedly stonewalled any progress here despite numerous editors (including admins) stating that the red links should go. The previous AfDs and this thread at WP:AN should suffice if you're looking for examples. There's a very simple solution to your concern about - create stubs for any notable performers, including references (which are already in this article, so it should be quite easy). Perhaps your comrades at the "Article Rescue Squadron" would help you get this done? In the meantime, I will proceed with removing red links. Please act by creating the desired stubs and not simply reverting. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- DC - why are you against raising a specific RfC in order to have a clear consensus on this point of blanket deleting all red-links on this list rather than just assuming you must represent consensus? As far as I can see nobody has pointed to a prior specific consensus building discussion, perhaps this is a good time to start. Ash (talk) 14:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, I can see you've blanket deleted rather than discussing any further or trying an RfC. I guess you feel building consensus isn't that important here. Ash (talk) 14:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't see your earlier comment - the article is so long that edits take quite a while to process. I have offered a simple solution for Benjiboi's concern and not for the first time. It is not clear to me why they (or you) do not simply start creating properly sourced stubs for any notable gay porn performers. As for consensus, I feel it has been amply established in the previous discussions I have already linked. I doubt any amount of discussion will change Benjiboi's opinions or ownership of this article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, I can see you've blanket deleted rather than discussing any further or trying an RfC. I guess you feel building consensus isn't that important here. Ash (talk) 14:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delicious carbuncle, you have continually heightened all issues - whether relevant or not - to a BLP flailing and alarmist level while showing insensitivity to common sense and consensus of other editors. This is simply disruptive and unhelpful. The best alarmist case you had going was that a wikilink on this list might lead to a BLP of someone who is both alive and not a pornographic actor. Allegations that Wikipedia fielded complaints along these lines were made but despite numerous requests for any evidence or simply a rough estimate of how many of these complaints ever came in, no meaningful data was ever presented. Despite this a group of editors worked through every entry on this list to address this possible concern. To accidentally wikilink the wrong article sems liek aa borderline issue but remains something that is easily foixable by simply disambiguating the wikilink. Which was done. Then you spiraled into the absurd deleting (or proposing to delete) articles on subjects who were quickly shown to be notable. Nothing was shown to be a BLP issue there as reliable sources revealed the names of those performers not us and little if any of the information we had was evidenced as untrue - which is what BLP is about. As you have now shown this has much more to do with your interest in deletion rather than actually improving content please follow the policies regarding lists and consensus. Harassing myself and referring to those at the Article Rescue Squad as "my comrades" suggests you are simply following the tin hat crowd at Wikipedia Review again, if not leading. That site has been organizing all manner of harassment and nonsense and likely those editors who are enabling banned and blocked editors should all be shown the door as bullies are detrimental to building quality content. Your involvement on this article has been an exercise in drama over the past few months and this seems more evidence of you stirring up the next round of concern building a mountain out of a molehill when all concerned could actually be doing much more constructive work than trying to appease your skewed views that even notable subjects who should have an article must be removed.There is simply no reason except You Don't Like It. -- Banjeboi 15:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Most of what you have written here is simply nonsense and unrelated to my actual words or actions so I won't be responding to it. If I am so strongly opposed to articles on gay porn performers, why am I suggesting that still more articles be created? Please stop edit-warring over these changes. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- You have taken actions here designed solely to provoke so please don't take others here as fools. You are the one removing sourced content against consensus. Please cease and desist. -- Banjeboi 16:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Most of what you have written here is simply nonsense and unrelated to my actual words or actions so I won't be responding to it. If I am so strongly opposed to articles on gay porn performers, why am I suggesting that still more articles be created? Please stop edit-warring over these changes. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- DC - why are you against raising a specific RfC in order to have a clear consensus on this point of blanket deleting all red-links on this list rather than just assuming you must represent consensus? As far as I can see nobody has pointed to a prior specific consensus building discussion, perhaps this is a good time to start. Ash (talk) 14:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Benjiboi, you continually show yourself to be insensitive to the concerns about BLPs that are not only shared by most other editors, but articulated in policy. You have singlehandedly stonewalled any progress here despite numerous editors (including admins) stating that the red links should go. The previous AfDs and this thread at WP:AN should suffice if you're looking for examples. There's a very simple solution to your concern about - create stubs for any notable performers, including references (which are already in this article, so it should be quite easy). Perhaps your comrades at the "Article Rescue Squadron" would help you get this done? In the meantime, I will proceed with removing red links. Please act by creating the desired stubs and not simply reverting. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
RfC: Should redlinked entries be removed?
Should the redlink entries in this article be removed? The relevant background discussion can be found above and at the article's latest AfD. ThemFromSpace 16:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- A diff with the redlinks included may be seen here and a diff with the redlinks removed may be seen here. ThemFromSpace 03:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- No, though they may be renamed to be unique. The issue with complying with REDLINK is accidentally linking to someone with the same name when such an article is newly created. Using a suffix "(porn film actor)", or equivalent, will ensure unique future-proof disambiguation (e.g. John Smith (porn film actor)). REDLINK encourages retaining such links where new articles may be created; this list is an ideal way to get such stubs started. Ash (talk) 17:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- yes If this list can persist at all, this should at minimum be a list of notable performs in these pornos -- not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE listing of everyone that appeared in some flavor of porn or other. As a minimum, they should be the sorts of people notable enough (in the wp sense) to sustain an article.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- The list is not WP:INDISCRIMINATE and has been undergoing sourcing and clean-up when editors here haven't been working to improve individual articles that folks like you have also sent for deletion. In fact if an entry clearly meets Wikipedia's measure for inclusion it was still deleted only because an article hasn't been built yet. -- Banjeboi 07:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yes per BLP issues, and because this shouldn't be an indiscriminate list of every gay-porn star. Epbr123 (talk) 20:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Please explain what, if any BLP issue exist here. -- Banjeboi 07:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, as above. This is looking much better and I'll take a look and the broken cite mess in a sec. Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- ABSOLUTELY NOT anyone care to cite policy about this? There is none. Each one of those entries has a reference, there is no requirement that there must be an article for each red link. Absolutely none. The AFD closing admin mentioned nothing about red links, it was just a couple of dissatisfied editors who did, and, as the AFD states, the proportion to keep was 75% (2/3rds) If these complaining editors don't like current red link policy, change it elsewhere first. Ikip 01:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- No You can't remove links just because of appearance. And just because no one has made an article for those things, doesn't mean they aren't notable. Does every award winning porn star have their own article, even if considered notable? Does every porn star who has done a major role in multiple notable films, have their own article? There are references for information being erased as well. Dream Focus 02:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe - it's not whether the link is red or not, it's whether it's established that the person is a gay male who is a porn star, using reliable sourcing. If that is established (with a satisfactory citation of a reliable source) the link can stay (subject only to other considerations of how likely it is that we will ever have an article on that person, which is driven by our best guess at notability) but if not, it's a BLP policy violation to include information that may well be considered deleterious or harmful, especially in a list. That's not subject to local consensus. ++Lar: t/c 02:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Lar, the list is of male performers in gay porn films, not gay male performers in porn films. The performers do not have to be gay to be in the list, just so long as they are male and appear in gay porn (and not necessarily in a sexual role). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Good point. That's a point of confusion for others and I shouldn't have made that mistake. My point still stands though... it's the same point I think you and others were making above, that any possibility of misidentification is a possibility of harm to a BLP victim. Even one such possibility is one too many. So if it's not a sourced redlink or if the link is one that might possibly be confusing as to who was referred to, it should be removed. ++Lar: t/c 05:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Then we should be debating the references, not the red links. I agree with Lar, it is all about the reliable sources. I haven't examined the sources, because, I am really not that interested in this subject. I am afraid of a goate(sp?) type pic greeting me... Ikip 05:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Good point. That's a point of confusion for others and I shouldn't have made that mistake. My point still stands though... it's the same point I think you and others were making above, that any possibility of misidentification is a possibility of harm to a BLP victim. Even one such possibility is one too many. So if it's not a sourced redlink or if the link is one that might possibly be confusing as to who was referred to, it should be removed. ++Lar: t/c 05:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Most of these are stage names used ... wait for it ... for use in appearing in gay pornographic films. -- Banjeboi 07:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Lar, the list is of male performers in gay porn films, not gay male performers in porn films. The performers do not have to be gay to be in the list, just so long as they are male and appear in gay porn (and not necessarily in a sexual role). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- No, Absolutely ridiculous. Delicious carbuncle has again shown his disdain for this list by again trying to delete sourced content regardless of lack of consensus to do so. Those pushing for this novel interpretation to remove entries are quite confused about this list. It is for male actors who are confirmed to have acted in gay male pornographic films. Most are immediately evident as notable for winning major porn awards thus meeting WP:Pornbio. They have systematically targeted articles in this area with varying success to also delete those. This remains the only list for this subject area and lists do not have to contain only items that we already have articles for, in fact we welcome WP:Redlinks because they show us the gaps in Wikipedia's coverage in a specific area. Culturally being gay or a porn star or *gasp* a pornstar in gay pornography, is very much taboo. Headlines cover when a straight actor appears in gay porn or bottoms in such; actors traditionally use aliases to avoid this scrutiny. This list helps negate the need for dozens upon dozens of stubby articles until they are produced organically rather than en masse to appease the alarmist cries that any BLP issues exist here at all despite the offsite campaigning to spread misinformation. Five months ago or so there were no sources on this list and it was incomplete and didn't even contain all the entries in corresponding categories. When numerous entries were added they often pointed to the wrong article - instead of just disambiguating those links, which is routine and takes very little time - Delicious carbuncle set about forum shopping to 3 or 4 admin boards and started an AfD. Here again we have more disruption from someone with an axe to grind. It isn't helping this list and has proved to be a drama fest any time they inflict WP:BRD on the list and then others have to be called in to help them cooperate with other editors. There remains no reason to remove these entries beside I don't like it and will disrupt to make a point. -- Banjeboi 07:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Although we are not bound by precedent, (Wikipedia is all about trying different things out to see how well they work, and then being willing to change if they don't) it's instructive to examine other lists. Why is it that other lists have explicit disclaimers? For example, consider List of female poets which explicitly states "People on this list should have articles of their own, and should meet the Wikipedia notability guidelines for their poetry. Please place names on the list only if there is a real and existing article on the poet. Dead links in RED will be removed." ??? Seems to me that this "List of male performers in gay porn films " is an outlier. Why exactly is it not reasonable to conform to the way other lists are done? Now, to be sure not all lists are done that way, but what do the poet writers know that the porn writers don't? ++Lar: t/c 15:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Clearly many, most?, of those deleted entries meet our standards for inclusion by meeting either GNG or Pornbio or both. As this is the only list for this massive genre of porn this is the only place we have for this information which is clearly encyclopedic. If we only had one list for poets and entries clearly passed any reasonable test for notability I would, of course, feel the same about including them and would point out to any list-keeper that there is no good reason not to include entries simply because the individual articles have yet to be written. -- Banjeboi 19:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Comment in reply to Lar: there must be 10,000 times as many poets in the world as there are porn actors (and 1000 times as many notable poets as notable porn actors). I would think that one reason for a stricter policy at List of female poets is because that list would quickly grow to an unmanageable size if poets without articles were listed. (That would be true, I think, even if the redlinked ones were reliably sourced.) I have no strong opinion on the redlink question here—if push comes to shove, I say keep 'em if they're reliably sourced—but wanted to note what I saw as a lack of comparability. Rivertorch (talk) 03:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Although we are not bound by precedent, (Wikipedia is all about trying different things out to see how well they work, and then being willing to change if they don't) it's instructive to examine other lists. Why is it that other lists have explicit disclaimers? For example, consider List of female poets which explicitly states "People on this list should have articles of their own, and should meet the Wikipedia notability guidelines for their poetry. Please place names on the list only if there is a real and existing article on the poet. Dead links in RED will be removed." ??? Seems to me that this "List of male performers in gay porn films " is an outlier. Why exactly is it not reasonable to conform to the way other lists are done? Now, to be sure not all lists are done that way, but what do the poet writers know that the porn writers don't? ++Lar: t/c 15:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - As detailed below in RfC and obfuscation of earlier consensus, there were warnings against the inclusion of red links in hidden text at the start of every section of the article until User:Benjiboi unilaterally changed the text from "PLEASE DON’T WIKILINK NAMES UNLESS THERE IS AN ARTICLE ON THE PERSON AS A PERFORMER IN GAY PORN FILMS" to "Please DO NOT add names without a cite to a reliable source confirming they have been an actor in gay porn film. Unsourced items are likely to be contested and removed". Around the same time, Benjiboi also removed the editing instructions which had long been on this talk page to assist editors. At that time, the article had been just survived another AfD as "no consensus", with the closing statement being "Clean it up to valid bluelinks only, ansure BLP is not violated" (emphasis mine). Benjiboi proceeded almost singlehandedly to take the article from something resembling the current List of female pornographic actresses by decade to the red link packed, commercial porn site sourced mess it is today. All of these issues had come up and were addressed in the past. While it is possible that a new consensus may be arrived at here, it may be helpful to acknowledge that there was an existing consensus against red links and questionable sources up until a single editor took ownership of this article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delicious carbuncle, it's hard to take you seriously when you clearly are inventing a past that never happened, alleging that I'm the source of all the problems, well, that's just giving me a lot of credit i guess. I did however completely overhaul the list to source and explain every entry and why it potentially should be a part of the list, that is different than WP:Ownership which is about harassing others from editing here which actually describes your work here - you've made this talkpage unpleasant for months. Despite this the list will continue to improve and the world will get to see a little bit more about the under-represented genre in an encyclopedic manner. You seem to be missing that this list, for years has been various folks vandalize and add non-sense and others attempt to clean it up. Meanwhile discussions on the inclusion has gone back and forth. Until I overhauled the entire thing this list had no sources and that was the main complain at the AfD prior to your AfD. It's a large list and among the issues it showed was that dozens of people who certainly met GNG and/or Pornbio didn't have articles or the articles were in a poor enough state - and little effort to verify their accuracy ensued - so they were deleted. I have been the main clean-upper here and efforts to continue doing so have been largely productive and peaceful except when you and your offsite "comrades" have disrupted with one non-sensical diatribe after the next. OMG a wikilink points to the wrong person!!! Sky .. is ... falling! Instead of just fixing it you create and stir drama - but to give credit you are good at it, your so good at it you did so at at least admin boards until myself and other editors actually did the work to clean it up. This parallels your efforts in the area altogether. a lot of arm-flailing and accusations and drama while others simply do the clean-up work like mature editors do. -- Banjeboi 23:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- The "imaginary past" that I have "invented" comes with diffs. Here is the diff of Benjiboi editing the hidden comments in the article to remove warnings about adding red links on 8 July 2009. Here is the diff of Benjiboi removing the editing instructions from the talk page on 13 July 2009. Actions speak louder than words. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Cherry-picking regular editing in an overall effort to fully source an entire list while - whoops - ignoring the fact that I have actually added the majority of sourcing here; and while overlooking your own history of disrupting this article for months is incredibly insincere. You've only shown an interest in deleting this content despite your empty claim you want us to build dozens of articles y'know before their entry could be on the list. No, it works the other way around. Please find a subject area you apparently do approve so the community can be spared these exercises in dramatics and disruption. -- Banjeboi 21:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- The "imaginary past" that I have "invented" comes with diffs. Here is the diff of Benjiboi editing the hidden comments in the article to remove warnings about adding red links on 8 July 2009. Here is the diff of Benjiboi removing the editing instructions from the talk page on 13 July 2009. Actions speak louder than words. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delicious carbuncle, it's hard to take you seriously when you clearly are inventing a past that never happened, alleging that I'm the source of all the problems, well, that's just giving me a lot of credit i guess. I did however completely overhaul the list to source and explain every entry and why it potentially should be a part of the list, that is different than WP:Ownership which is about harassing others from editing here which actually describes your work here - you've made this talkpage unpleasant for months. Despite this the list will continue to improve and the world will get to see a little bit more about the under-represented genre in an encyclopedic manner. You seem to be missing that this list, for years has been various folks vandalize and add non-sense and others attempt to clean it up. Meanwhile discussions on the inclusion has gone back and forth. Until I overhauled the entire thing this list had no sources and that was the main complain at the AfD prior to your AfD. It's a large list and among the issues it showed was that dozens of people who certainly met GNG and/or Pornbio didn't have articles or the articles were in a poor enough state - and little effort to verify their accuracy ensued - so they were deleted. I have been the main clean-upper here and efforts to continue doing so have been largely productive and peaceful except when you and your offsite "comrades" have disrupted with one non-sensical diatribe after the next. OMG a wikilink points to the wrong person!!! Sky .. is ... falling! Instead of just fixing it you create and stir drama - but to give credit you are good at it, your so good at it you did so at at least admin boards until myself and other editors actually did the work to clean it up. This parallels your efforts in the area altogether. a lot of arm-flailing and accusations and drama while others simply do the clean-up work like mature editors do. -- Banjeboi 23:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Obviously Including redlinks is a BLP nightmare. Hipocrite (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- "BLP Nightmare" seems to be a favorite quote yet no evidence of any BLP nightmares seems to exist, in fact Delicious carbuncle claimed this on several admin boards and the only example was of a *gasp* wikilink that went to the wrong article, which is an easily fixed issue by simply disambiguating the link. Which he failed to do in every case. Instead other editors acted maturely without the screeds, without the drama and hysteria and actually did the work. So instead of claiming any BLP issue please demonstrate exactly what BLP concern may exist and that it is not fixable by regular editing. Like simply disambiguating a redlink. -- Banjeboi 21:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Not if sourced and "notable" Problem with redlinks is that it implies no source. If the redlink is sourced, and evidence of "notability" is there, then it's a marker for future work. Removing the redlink stifles growth by hiding "notable" subjects which do not yet have articles. Dekkappai (talk) 21:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Clean it up to valid bluelinks only IMO there is no such thng as a notable redlink, experienced editors are here and truth is that if a redlink was really notable they would create the article, a sourced redlink is a not-notable person with one citation, imo if he is alive and he is not worthy of his own article but you have a citation you should still not add him if he doesn't warrant his own notability. Off2riorob (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Comment "If they were notable, they'd already have an article" is not a valid argument in niche subject areas. I work in Japanese cinema-- both mainstream and cult-- and I can tell you there are dozens, if not hundreds of un-begun articles on films and actors who have won the top awards in the country, or are on the lists of national critics as the Best of the 20th Century. This idea that Wikipedia is already finished with "the sum of human knowledge" is a dangerous one to the future of the project. Dekkappai (talk) 01:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Exclude redlinks not notable enough for an article. But at any rate if they are included you need sources and unambiguous link. IMDB is not a reliable source - it was being used here.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- "If they were notable, they'd already have an article" is not a valid argument for deletion, but hey, **** happens. Off2riorob (talk) 02:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Exclude redlinks of people/primary subjects. Hopefully we all agree that the list should only contain people who are notable for their role as male performers in gay porn films. And I agree with those that it's obviously true there are some notable people who belong on this list we don't have articles on. However excluding redlinks of people is often a good idea on a list about things which aren't inherently notable (if things on the list can be presumed to be notable whether for a seperate article or mention in a subarticle, e.g. list of Nobel prize winners, List of winners of an Oscar, list of plants of the genus Garcinia that's a different matter) and avoids unnecessary and ultimately unresovable arguments about whether the subject is notable (e.g. List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming is a good example of where this has helped). If the subject is notable, then people should prove that by creating an article. This is particularly wise when the subjects are living people. Note that I would consider including someone who isn't notable and lacks an article in this list a BLP violation. It's also worth remembering that things in mainspace are for the readers. Given the sheer number of redlinks in the list, the benefit for readers is unclear. Lists are not intended to be primarily an article creation guide, it may be acceptable to have something like that outside of mainspace but not in the main space. Also despite the claims of editors above that there was only ever one BLP violation, I count one redlinks without sources or any information on who they are or why they are notable under C at [2] with the articles on him deleted in December. This may not seem like much but it's the low hanging fruit and I probably missed some (I only briefly glanced thru the list). There's also an additional one under C which was deleted on the 30th January and one under K but the article was deleted on 2nd February; although given that I'm talking about a 2nd February revision of the page, the former is okay and the second one to be expected. There's also those sourced to IMDB as Scott mentioned. And please don't find better sources now and then try and argue these aren't BLP violations, if you think that reread BLP and stop editing BLP related articles until you understand policy better. In addition when glancing at a September version of this page for something else, I came across one example (Jon K....) who is sourced on 2nd February page (albeit without any real evidence for notability) but the article was deleted in December. Clearly it's inappropriate to include someone who has not survived deletion so even if it is sourced this one should go until and unless someone recreates an article. Note I came across this by accident, there are almost definitely more of this sort I would expect. Also while very briefly glancing thru the list, I noticed Gavin P...... a.k.a. D......, D...... J...... which concerned me because I'm aware there's a history of people putting alleged real names of performers in articles without strong enough sourcing to establish either that that's really the real name or that it's sufficient notable enough for the article and it seems like something that could be a problem here. Anyway, one of the sources doesn't work or link to the right place (which happens I guess) although appears to be linking to a primary source/listing of the movie; one appears to be linking to the right place which is a primary source/listing of the movie but doesn't seem to mention that either name is in the movie (either on the site or on the cover); the third one does at least mention the Gavin P...... name although not the D..... name. This wasn't quite as bad I feared, if either of those names are real, the Gavin P..... sounds more like it then the D..... one however the fact remains the a.k.a. bit seems unsourced, the person doesn't seem to be in one of the movies that we claim he's in (or if he's using a different name yet again but we have no source connecting the two). And the notability of this person is not particularly clear from the information presented or the sources. So yes, it's easy to see ways this list can lead to BLP violations and of course the more acceptable it becomes to add redlinks, the more likely people are to add such dodgily sourced names and information to this list i.e. the more likely we are to get BLP violations. And the more time people spend cleaning up information that perhaps should never have been here. Nil Einne (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- These are some well-thought out points however this again demands that to simply have an entry on the list we have to create the article first. That doesn't seem to follow reason when these are performers who are best know for exactly this work often employing stage names so the concept that their stage name used for performing in gay porn films is a a BLP problem is a bit hollow. The aka's point is a good one so simply ensuring that each is also sourced would quickly resolve that issue. My understanding is that IMDB is used for those wanting to see what films this person is credited with so we don't have to include such information here, especially when some performers have been in dozens of films we simply state they have been in dozens of films and leave it at that. IMDB can be used for such information as an additional source. Frankly this mountain out of a molehill happened in the middle of a lengthly clean-up but discussing what issues should be addressed makes sense. And as someone who has worked to clean-up lists that do get vandalized the opposite is usually true. Once a list is fully cleaned-up the vandalism usually eases as it's more clear what belongs/or doesn't and if/when someone vandalises even if it's endemic, it can be easily spotted and rolled back. -- Banjeboi 23:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- Follow Existing Editing Instructions and turn redlinks to black (not remove information altogether!) See Talk:List_of_male_performers_in_gay_porn_films#RfC_and_obfuscation_of_earlier_consensus which includes: "Unless there is an article on the performer listed here, their name should not be wikilinked. There should never be redlinks in this article. Do not wikilink a name before writing an article on the performer. An article about a person with an identical name to one listed here will be linked here even though the subject of the other article is not a performer in gay porn films." --Stillwaterising (talk) 05:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Revision with red links removed
Here is a revision of the article with the red links removed. It would nice if everyone could leave it alone for long enough for the bot to repair the broken references. That will give us a point to work from should anyone ever choose to look at cleaning up the sourcing. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- To all of the parties here, please don't edit war over this material. Currently I don't see much of a consensus for any large scale editing with regards to this article, which is why I threw up an RfC. Them From Space 16:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- The bot has done its thing - this is now the version that should be used as a baseline. Now that that is done, if anyone wants to revert my changes, I won't agree with your actions, but neither will I revert you. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- As I just commented in the above section, this is looking up. The bot left some broken cites, no? Off to look. Good job, Jack Merridew 22:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delicious carbuncle, shouldn't you wait for the results of the RFC first? Especially since you have absolutely no policy to back up your opinion. Ikip 01:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- WP:BLP, Ikip. Most of those redlinks would be living people. Jack Merridew 02:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Lol. No Jack Merridew, BLP would apply if these people were not readily identifiable with reliable sources that they are indeed male actors in gay pornographic films. Guess what? They all are. -- Banjeboi 11:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- WP:BLP, Ikip. Most of those redlinks would be living people. Jack Merridew 02:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
In general, we don't remove redlinks if there is a chance that there will be articles about the link target. I was just talking with someone about this on my talk page. (see User:Lar#WP:REDLINK & the bounds of a BLP article ). However in this case, as with other lists where inclusion might be considered derogatory to the subject, if there is no source for the information, removal is warranted. This is a huge list, to be sure, but that's not a waiver. Each and every name on the list needs to be sourced, or it is subject to removal under WP:BLP policy. Edit warring to preserve BLP violating material is not allowed, and this is not a matter for local consensus to decide. If that's not sufficient, this matter needs to be referred to the BLP noticeboard. ++Lar: t/c 02:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- FWIW, I've requested that this page be protected due to the edit warring. I'll let the protecting admin decide for himself which "wrong version" to protect. Them From Space 02:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Derogatory? Confusing someone with a homosexual might be derogatory, or with someone who does pornography for a living? How about we just change the links so that (pornographic actor) is added to it? Would that solve this problem? And why not just remove the links, instead of mass deleting a large chunk of information, about people who are sourced as having won a notable award, such as the GayVN Awards? Dream Focus 02:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- It might be useful to look at List of pornographic actresses by decade which is the closest equivalent article for female performers. There are no red links and any attempts to add a red link to that list will be quickly rebuffed. All sourcing is in the articles themselves, not in the list, which seems entirely more appropriate and is much easier to maintain. I have suggested that stubs be created for any notable male performers rather than continuing this debate over red links, but no one seems to be interested in doing that. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- "There are no red links and any attempts to add a red link to that list will be quickly rebuffed"
- No discussion on the talk page about red links.
- As far as I can see, all red links removed on that page have no sources,[3][4] which is the difference here.
- I see a lot of red links are deleted after they fail AFDs are deleted for other reasons...which I would support here too.
- Bottom line is that there is no guideline or policy which states sourced red links should be deleted. Ikip 05:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- I believe WP:LIST and WP:SAL support the inclusion of red links only if there is a reasonable expectation that articles will be forthcoming. Both guidelines mention that lists should not be used primarily for development or maintenance purposes. Having just gone through a fairly time-consuming exercise of removing the red links, I can affirm that I removed at least half of the entries. You may be surprised to learn that some of the red links (or unlinked entries) here were from articles which had been deleted at AfD. Previous removals of these entries were reverted, so apparently your commonsense view is not shared by all, which is one of the issues here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Actually this is the only list on male actors in gay pornographic films - there isn't a great equivalent but as long as you bring it up ... This list has been improving to note when each actor was/is active and the vast majority of notable early performers are not represented as the awards didn't exist yet, and when porn awards started there were very few that even addressed gay content. The vast majority of redlinks are for actors that won major porn awards in the last fifteen years, and only in the US. Those eager to delete content here are woefully misinformed and are pushing for an extreme inclusion guideline that isn't supported in policy or practice. -- Banjeboi 12:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Let's deal with the fiction that this is the "only" list of gay porn performers. Looking at Category:Gay male pornography, we have the lists List of Grabby recipients, List of gay pornography awards, GayVN Awards, and Gay Erotic Video Awards. Additionally, there are gay male performers such as Wolf Hudson already included in List of African-American pornographic actors (which may not be appropriate if Hudson does not self-identify as African-American). I'm not sure how many lists of straight porn performers there are, but looking at Category:Lists of pornographic film actors, there don't seem to be any more than for gay porn performers. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- DC, expressing your annoyance in edit comments (diff for the above) is not appropriate, particularly as they cannot be struck out later. This could be read as an attempt to bait other editors, please stop. You may find the advice of TEA helpful. Ash (talk) 15:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not annoyed at all. In fact, I'm laughing as I write this. Calling something "bullshit" isn't a sign of annoyance nor is it offensive where I reside. If addressing the misinformation being spread here seems like "baiting" to other editors, perhaps they are the ones who should walk away from the issue. By the way, edit summaries can be redacted, but I would be very surprised if anyone felt it necessary. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- We write for an international layman readership. I am writing in London, the majority of people in England would be offended if you told them they were talking bullshit, particularly in front of other people. Laughing it off as trivial does not stop it being offensive to me and others. Please do not side-track or mis-represent my statement, the context was obviously about you appearing to deliberately bait other editors. Ash (talk) 16:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- I think people in London and many other places might be offended simply by being told that they were wrong, but my point was that the word itself is not offensive. Your assumption that I was intending to bait anyone is simply wrong - I was not. It's probably best if you stop making assumptions about my moods, intentions, and motivations. Let's clear up one point - Benjiboi is likely to accuse me of harassment, link me to sites critical of Wikipedia, minimize any past discussions which reveal his actions, and generally attempt to divert the conversation rather than deal with the specific issues. It generally has like relevance to what I've actually written. It makes it unpleasant, but I am used to it, and I am not deterred by it. If we could all try to focus on the article, it would be better for everyone. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- I was referring to your behaviour, not inviting you to speculate about Benjiboi. If you want discussions to stay on track I suggest you avoid describing other editors contributions as "bullshit" or any other uncivil or disparaging term. I accept your usage may have been out of ignorance of how other people may find it offensive when you obviously do not. Ash (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- While remaining civil and remembering we write for an international audience are both good pieces of advice in general I think this subthread is a red herring, a digression at best. Comment on content, not the contributor, which goes both ways. ++Lar: t/c 17:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- That's really good advice that seems to be lost on the one who hath brought us yet another round of drama. Despite the deflection this remains the only list for male performers in gay porn, List of Grabby recipients is not solely male actors and the rest are not lists or aren't solely for these folks either. Experienced editors should be aware the difference of categories and lists - just a hint here, since we're referring to people who don't have articles written about them presently they certainly wouldn't be in any categories. -- Banjeboi 20:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- While remaining civil and remembering we write for an international audience are both good pieces of advice in general I think this subthread is a red herring, a digression at best. Comment on content, not the contributor, which goes both ways. ++Lar: t/c 17:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- I was referring to your behaviour, not inviting you to speculate about Benjiboi. If you want discussions to stay on track I suggest you avoid describing other editors contributions as "bullshit" or any other uncivil or disparaging term. I accept your usage may have been out of ignorance of how other people may find it offensive when you obviously do not. Ash (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- I think people in London and many other places might be offended simply by being told that they were wrong, but my point was that the word itself is not offensive. Your assumption that I was intending to bait anyone is simply wrong - I was not. It's probably best if you stop making assumptions about my moods, intentions, and motivations. Let's clear up one point - Benjiboi is likely to accuse me of harassment, link me to sites critical of Wikipedia, minimize any past discussions which reveal his actions, and generally attempt to divert the conversation rather than deal with the specific issues. It generally has like relevance to what I've actually written. It makes it unpleasant, but I am used to it, and I am not deterred by it. If we could all try to focus on the article, it would be better for everyone. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- We write for an international layman readership. I am writing in London, the majority of people in England would be offended if you told them they were talking bullshit, particularly in front of other people. Laughing it off as trivial does not stop it being offensive to me and others. Please do not side-track or mis-represent my statement, the context was obviously about you appearing to deliberately bait other editors. Ash (talk) 16:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not annoyed at all. In fact, I'm laughing as I write this. Calling something "bullshit" isn't a sign of annoyance nor is it offensive where I reside. If addressing the misinformation being spread here seems like "baiting" to other editors, perhaps they are the ones who should walk away from the issue. By the way, edit summaries can be redacted, but I would be very surprised if anyone felt it necessary. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- DC, expressing your annoyance in edit comments (diff for the above) is not appropriate, particularly as they cannot be struck out later. This could be read as an attempt to bait other editors, please stop. You may find the advice of TEA helpful. Ash (talk) 15:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Let's deal with the fiction that this is the "only" list of gay porn performers. Looking at Category:Gay male pornography, we have the lists List of Grabby recipients, List of gay pornography awards, GayVN Awards, and Gay Erotic Video Awards. Additionally, there are gay male performers such as Wolf Hudson already included in List of African-American pornographic actors (which may not be appropriate if Hudson does not self-identify as African-American). I'm not sure how many lists of straight porn performers there are, but looking at Category:Lists of pornographic film actors, there don't seem to be any more than for gay porn performers. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- It might be useful to look at List of pornographic actresses by decade which is the closest equivalent article for female performers. There are no red links and any attempts to add a red link to that list will be quickly rebuffed. All sourcing is in the articles themselves, not in the list, which seems entirely more appropriate and is much easier to maintain. I have suggested that stubs be created for any notable male performers rather than continuing this debate over red links, but no one seems to be interested in doing that. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- There are “sources” on a lot of that redink, but they're terrible sources. Further, absent any actual article that firmly nails down just who is being labeled as a performer in these porn vids, inclusion in this list can be seen as casting an aspersion on anyone sharing the name. There are many names that are quite common and even some that are just single names; 'Roger' comes to mind from a few months ago. Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- I suggest we talk about the "terrible sources" I will support the deletion of names which have terrible sources. Ikip 05:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm concerned that no one has picked up on DC's comment above that a lot of the redlinks are of people who have been deleted. I noticed two examples of this in the tiny number I looked at. Is there actually anyone who disagrees if the article on the subject has been deleted (particularly AFD) then it should be removed until recreated? Nil Einne (talk) 19:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe, but consider this discussion - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Carrigan - the conclusion has been to delete the article of the second most credited actor in the history of gay pornography (as evidenced by any film database you care to check that includes porn films) who has been the lead actor of several award-winning films. If a consequence of that dubious decision is to purge his name even from this general list of porn stars, then I'm not sure what use to anyone the list really is, as any layman reader would be better off not using Wikipedia to find out about the adult entertainment industry. Letting literal interpretation win over common sense has made a nonsense of this article. I guess editors such as DC will be glad to hear that I'm tired of having the debate, let's hope that the long-term outcome is rather more positive than the
rubbishdecisions I'm seeing on article deletions at the moment. Ash (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)- Ash, any layman reader would be better off not using Wikipedia for any special interest subject. The Wikipedia definition of notability is often at odds with what a particular community would view as obvious. It is a mistake to view it as unique to gay porn performers or in any way targeted at this group. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- Actually it is unique to pornographic actors, that's the whole point of PORNBIO, it does target porn actors. In this field I consider myself a layman who would refer to Wikipedia as I have no expertise in the adult entertainment industry. It is my layman viewpoint that finds it odd that someone who I would call notable for being the second most credited in gay porn history is deleted by (somewhat marginal) consensus based on a lack of film awards in their name rather than for the films they had lead roles in and in the process ignoring their erotic wrestling film directing career. Ash (talk) 23:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- Ash, any layman reader would be better off not using Wikipedia for any special interest subject. The Wikipedia definition of notability is often at odds with what a particular community would view as obvious. It is a mistake to view it as unique to gay porn performers or in any way targeted at this group. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm opening myself up to another round of accusations for pointing this out, but Benjiboi has actively reinserted or relinked entries removed or unlinked following deletion. A recent example - the Christy Twins are unlinked following deletion at AfD (I would have preferred to see them removed), Benjiboi relinks them with the edit summary "rvt, WP:Redlinks show an article does not exist, and after looking for more I think an article on either the twins or twins in gay porn would certainly be acceptable". There are several more instances that same day. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- Unfortunately many articles are deleted based only on the surface appearance regardless of if the subject is actually notable so each case should be based on if they actually are notable not if someone made, yet another, knee-jerk reaction to delete. This is common in these porn articles unfortunately. -- Banjeboi 23:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Protected
I've put full protection on this article for three days. AniMate 03:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- shocked, simply shocked at what version it was saved at :) Ikip 05:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not surprised at the incorrect protected version. The RfC above is active and it is transparently obvious that the version to be protected is the one before the deletions the RfC discusses were made. When the RfC is complete then the article can be changed either way. The BOLD guidance used as a justification for making the edits was not followed when the deletions were reverted. BRD is a great policy, shame it or the normal conventions on reaching a consensus have been swept aside using BLP as a vague excuse when the whole point is that these are redlinks, NOT links to the wrong BLPs. Sorry AniMate, you have applied your power in a way that damages consensus building here. Ash (talk) 10:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Let's thank Animate for stopping the edit-warring which is what they were suppose to do, no judgement should be applied to which version was saved - it's a 50/50 chance it will be done right and just about guaranteed somewill will be happy and others not so much. -- Banjeboi 11:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not surprised at the incorrect protected version. The RfC above is active and it is transparently obvious that the version to be protected is the one before the deletions the RfC discusses were made. When the RfC is complete then the article can be changed either way. The BOLD guidance used as a justification for making the edits was not followed when the deletions were reverted. BRD is a great policy, shame it or the normal conventions on reaching a consensus have been swept aside using BLP as a vague excuse when the whole point is that these are redlinks, NOT links to the wrong BLPs. Sorry AniMate, you have applied your power in a way that damages consensus building here. Ash (talk) 10:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Protection is to stop the edit-warring. The right or wrong version matters not to that end. For those edit-warring to remove the material certainly think the right version was saved but at least they are on notice that the article is indeed being watched. -- Banjeboi 11:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks Benji. Of course this is the The Wrong VersionTM. I'm just glad things are being talked out on the talk page. AniMate 17:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- I guess the protection has expired. Judging from Benjiboi's edit summary of "restoring per talkpage; as many of these are listings that are clearly notable removing them wholesale remains disruptive and tenditious," perhaps it should be extended as nothing appears to have changed. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- That has been reverted. Benjiboi needs to get consensus FIRST before restoring redlinks. He knows better. ++Lar: t/c 19:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Actually you both know better although your disingenuous concept of protecting your preferred version after encouraged to do an RfC first then edit-warring to delete items that are clearly notable, And then deflecting away from the actual notability issue in every way but actually addressing the claims that had been asked then answered. Guess we should expect more WP:Drama but I certainly hope not. You were Bold, were Reverted, and now the RfC that you had to be forced into doing is now discussing. Please show consensus that notable people whose articles would certainly not be deleted should be deleted from the list. -- Banjeboi 21:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- And I've reverted you, Benjiboi, per Lar and BLP. You also attempted to discard a large batch of clean-up of the refs that I had done earlier today. As Lar says, you know better. Jack Merridew 21:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- First off my username is Benjiboi, if you can't use that then please don't use anything. Secondly you edit summarized BLP but no BLP issues have been shown to exist. So now you're simply edit-warring to re-introduce a BRD that is controversial and contested. -- Banjeboi 21:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- I added the five characters; no offense was intended. Jack Merridew 02:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- First off my username is Benjiboi, if you can't use that then please don't use anything. Secondly you edit summarized BLP but no BLP issues have been shown to exist. So now you're simply edit-warring to re-introduce a BRD that is controversial and contested. -- Banjeboi 21:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Benjiboi, can you please stop with all the bad faith, accusations, hyperbole, and analysis of people's motives? My goal was to establish a revision with the red links removed and the lost references fixed by the bot. Once that was done I stopped editing entirely and made it known that I would not be reverting anyone. I merely suggested that the protection be extended. I don't care which version is protected. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Please check your mirror to see where this drama and nonsense is coming from. You were encouraged to start an RfC but instead started edit-warring, this is the same pattern you have engaged here in the past when not claiming the sky is falling down. Your dramatics and personal attacks are disruptive and unneeded. Please don't pretend your offsite activities against me have no bearing on the developments here. You've caused disruption now more level-headed and less emotionally-involved editors can see if notable performers should be deleted from the only list for them. Pleading for me to allow your deletion spree to go unchecked will be given the same due consideration as your veiled threat to continue harassing me. -- Banjeboi 21:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- This is tiresome. Which offsite activities are you referring to? Please supply links and evidence that I am the person making any offsite remarks. What "veiled threat to continue harassing" you? If you believe I am harassing you presently, please take it to the appropriate noticeboard and stop making accusations here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- So to be clear you are denying you have ever made any veiled threats to continue harassing me if I didn't accept your "offer" on ANI. And your denying you have discussed me/my work/ this list in any offsite forum , specifically Wikipedia Review? If so that would indeed be bold. In summation you have made bold controversial mass deletions and they were reverted and you have been asked to stop deleting, and the proper response in a collegial environment would be to cooperate with such requests rather than deflect or otherwise avoid addressing the content issues and claiming problems exist when they do not. -- Banjeboi 22:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- I have asked you several times now to stop impugning my reputation here by trying to associate me with Wikipedia Review. Stop doing so. I have asked you to provide what you refer to as a "veiled threat to continue harassing" you. Either do so, with diffs, or stop making accusations. Again, if you think I am currently harassing you, either take it to the appropriate noticeboard or stop alluding to it. I have had enough of this nonsense. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- So to be clear you are denying you have ever made any veiled threats to continue harassing me if I didn't accept your "offer" on ANI. And your denying you have discussed me/my work/ this list in any offsite forum , specifically Wikipedia Review? If so that would indeed be bold. In summation you have made bold controversial mass deletions and they were reverted and you have been asked to stop deleting, and the proper response in a collegial environment would be to cooperate with such requests rather than deflect or otherwise avoid addressing the content issues and claiming problems exist when they do not. -- Banjeboi 22:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- This is tiresome. Which offsite activities are you referring to? Please supply links and evidence that I am the person making any offsite remarks. What "veiled threat to continue harassing" you? If you believe I am harassing you presently, please take it to the appropriate noticeboard and stop making accusations here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Please check your mirror to see where this drama and nonsense is coming from. You were encouraged to start an RfC but instead started edit-warring, this is the same pattern you have engaged here in the past when not claiming the sky is falling down. Your dramatics and personal attacks are disruptive and unneeded. Please don't pretend your offsite activities against me have no bearing on the developments here. You've caused disruption now more level-headed and less emotionally-involved editors can see if notable performers should be deleted from the only list for them. Pleading for me to allow your deletion spree to go unchecked will be given the same due consideration as your veiled threat to continue harassing me. -- Banjeboi 21:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- And I've reverted you, Benjiboi, per Lar and BLP. You also attempted to discard a large batch of clean-up of the refs that I had done earlier today. As Lar says, you know better. Jack Merridew 21:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Actually you both know better although your disingenuous concept of protecting your preferred version after encouraged to do an RfC first then edit-warring to delete items that are clearly notable, And then deflecting away from the actual notability issue in every way but actually addressing the claims that had been asked then answered. Guess we should expect more WP:Drama but I certainly hope not. You were Bold, were Reverted, and now the RfC that you had to be forced into doing is now discussing. Please show consensus that notable people whose articles would certainly not be deleted should be deleted from the list. -- Banjeboi 21:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- That has been reverted. Benjiboi needs to get consensus FIRST before restoring redlinks. He knows better. ++Lar: t/c 19:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Both of you, but especially Benjiboi, comment on content, not contributor. Or this will have to go to AN/I, again. And if you must edit war, Benjiboi, at least don't undo the reference cleanup, eh? ++Lar: t/c 22:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Lar, sorry but you are missing that I was following BRD, the refs can fixed as needed, no one is arguing against that. And the commenting on contributors? DC has done so at seemingly every opportunity to malign, this is likely, in part, that there is no actually policy rationale for this disruption. Only by trying to paint me as the problem does the issue stay off the fact that notable entries should never be removed and degrading the list by disruption and distraction is their only recourse. This has gone on for months and any issue could have been resolved without their "help" and with far less drama. -- Banjeboi 00:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- But your actions are the problem. A good part of it anyway. Here, and elsewhere. Specific to this matter: In BLP cases, when there is a dispute about something, we err on the side of caution. It is safer to leave the redinks out. BRD is an essay, a practice to be applied sometimes. BLP is a policy, and one that trumps just about anything else not foundational. ++Lar: t/c 01:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Actually you have again claimed BLP problems and whenever anything that actually is a BLP problem it is quickly addressed without drama and disruption. So no, my actions on this list have been to clean it up, Delicious carbuncle has come along = undoubtably to carry out even more of their special attention in this area with alarmingly bad judgement and do so against consensus, against collegial advice and requests not to and they couple it with inuendo, false claims and ... more drama. This is a problematic cycle they just can't seem to break. My actions were to undo their wholesale mass deletion of dozens of sourced notable entries solely because they didn't yet have an article. This list was the only place those people have on this encyclopedia and this genre is routinely targeted for deletion without due diligence to check for sourcing and notability - they're a pornstar, meh, delete - unfortunately BLP is being waved as a banner yet I would have removed these items myself if there was any truth to it. -- Banjeboi 14:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- If that were true you would stop trying to put redlinks back in, because the redlinks, themselves, are the BLP problem. ++Lar: t/c 17:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- That has been asked, answered and disputed repeatedly - there remains no reasonable interpretation that a wikilink that leads to nowhere is in any way a BLP issue, in fact they were disambiguated to clearly show which entries had their own articles and which didn't. This could have been done without all the drama - like we see here yet again, but sadly the very same editor who led the edit warring started dramatica interuptus rather than simply (and civilly) trying to resolve the problem. This has been their pattern here for months. So no, a wikilink is not a problem, if it were pointing to a BLP article in error that is easily fixable. -- Banjeboi 20:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- If that were true you would stop trying to put redlinks back in, because the redlinks, themselves, are the BLP problem. ++Lar: t/c 17:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Actually you have again claimed BLP problems and whenever anything that actually is a BLP problem it is quickly addressed without drama and disruption. So no, my actions on this list have been to clean it up, Delicious carbuncle has come along = undoubtably to carry out even more of their special attention in this area with alarmingly bad judgement and do so against consensus, against collegial advice and requests not to and they couple it with inuendo, false claims and ... more drama. This is a problematic cycle they just can't seem to break. My actions were to undo their wholesale mass deletion of dozens of sourced notable entries solely because they didn't yet have an article. This list was the only place those people have on this encyclopedia and this genre is routinely targeted for deletion without due diligence to check for sourcing and notability - they're a pornstar, meh, delete - unfortunately BLP is being waved as a banner yet I would have removed these items myself if there was any truth to it. -- Banjeboi 14:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- But your actions are the problem. A good part of it anyway. Here, and elsewhere. Specific to this matter: In BLP cases, when there is a dispute about something, we err on the side of caution. It is safer to leave the redinks out. BRD is an essay, a practice to be applied sometimes. BLP is a policy, and one that trumps just about anything else not foundational. ++Lar: t/c 01:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
No more reverts while discussion is ongoing guys. Anymore and I'll lock the article again. AniMate 01:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- I would feel more comfortable reverting the BOLD deleted sourced and notable entries as those campaigning have yet to cite a single reason not to except they apparently don't approve of the profession. If nothing else this would give all the opportunity to easily see the volume and content of these entries. If the consensus is indeed to delete these notable entries then there's no reason those deletions can't wait yet another few weeks. -- Banjeboi 14:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- In fact, explanation has been given, at length, repeatedly. You're just suffering from I didn't hear that syndrome. Further, asserting that it's because "they apparently don't approve of the profession" is false, is distracting from the actual arguments advanced, and generally unhelpful to boot. It's beneath all good Wikipedian to stoop to such rhetoric. It ought to be beneath you as well... ++Lar: t/c 17:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Benjiboi is not alone in his/her interpretation of BRD. It seems common sense that with an RfC running on the topic of "should these redlinks be removed" then BRD can only be interpreted to mean that the article defaults to its original state before redlinks were removed. The blanket changes cannot have a rationale on the basis of an urgent BLP issue either, if any were pointed out then those urgent changes could be made. I made this point above, I have little interest in lengthy rants about the matter, I would hope my opinion would count for something without needing endless repetition to make it seem more important. Ash (talk) 17:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- In fact, explanation has been given, at length, repeatedly. You're just suffering from I didn't hear that syndrome. Further, asserting that it's because "they apparently don't approve of the profession" is false, is distracting from the actual arguments advanced, and generally unhelpful to boot. It's beneath all good Wikipedian to stoop to such rhetoric. It ought to be beneath you as well... ++Lar: t/c 17:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
When one or more editors in good standing feel in good faith that there is a BLP matter, the appropriate temporary response, until the matter is resolved, is to remove the material in question. There is, I assert, a BLP problem with the very use of redlinks. Unless you are challenging my good faith in the matter, pending outcome of a resolution, they need to stay out. Not a debatable point, and administrators are empowered to act "aggressively" to protect BLP victims. If the material is inserted again before a clear consensus is reached here, I will seek a block from an uninvolved administrator for whoever inserts it. I have no doubt whatever that I can easily find an uninvolved administrator who will so block. I hope that clarifies matters. ++Lar: t/c 18:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Actually the key phrase in all that is "good faith", these were unfortunately not good faith mass deletions of notable entries. Delicious carbuncle was encouraged to seek consensus and to start an RfC - they failed to do either and started edit-warring. And no, no BLP problem with wikilinks has been shown despite repeated the fallacious assertion. -- Banjeboi 20:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Are you questioning my good faith? Really? ++Lar: t/c 20:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- What a pointless argumentative passive/aggressive question. If you feel you have a case raise it at ANI. Making accusations of bad faith does not normally go down well. Ash (talk) 20:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not the master of passive-aggressive behavior that Benjiboi is, to be sure. I was just responding to his casting aspersions on DC ("these were unfortunately not good faith mass deletions"... how does he know this? Why is he casting these aspersions?) rather than addressing the points I raised. As per usual. Now, Ash, do you have anything substantive to add here? My warning stands, if, after the protection ends, this article again has redlinks inserted, I will take this matter to the appropriate place and I have every expectation that whoever does it will be blocked. Further, Benjiboi needs to retract all assertions that others are not operating in good faith, and he needs to do so now, before he says anything else on this page. ++Lar: t/c 23:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- What a pointless argumentative passive/aggressive question. If you feel you have a case raise it at ANI. Making accusations of bad faith does not normally go down well. Ash (talk) 20:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Are you questioning my good faith? Really? ++Lar: t/c 20:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- There *is* a BLP concern, as I've expressed before (down a bit, to Major BLP issue). I commented on this more recently at User talk:Casliber#fancruft as a BLP concern (funcruft is not just about Star Trek et al, but is in evidence re porn, too;). Absent very solid reliable sources and BLP articles supported by them, we can not paint names as porn performers (or video game chars). Jack Merridew 23:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Since this is an obvious target for juvenile vandalism, would some forward-thinking admin please permanently semi-protect this page? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- I think semi on this page forever is a fine idea. I saw that you reverted this and I'm assuming that the GayVN Awards does not bestow a "Best Circle Jerk" award ;) I've no idea, really. Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- I would be slightly cautious about making assumptions in this area without checking, while it turns out that GayVN have not given out a Best Circle Jerk award, some awards can be of a similarly amusing title. For example since 2008 the Grabby awards have given out Best Rimming Scene... Ash (talk) 23:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
RfC and obfuscation of earlier consensus
In the archives of this talk page there are editing instructions for this page which represent earlier consensus. They actually address most of the sourcing and inclusion issues present in the article and, had they been followed, we would not be having an RfC about red links (or having a future one about sourcing). They are well written and useful - please read them:
Editing instructions
|
---|
How to edit this article
This is not a directory. See Wikipedia is not a directory. This article is an index of Wikipedia articles that have been written and also serves as a list of articles that need to be written. In order for a name without an article to be included here, there must be a reasonable expectation that an article will be written about the person. See Wikipedia:List guideline, Wikipedia:Lists of people. With rare exceptions, the person who is the topic of the article should meet the current versions of the Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors) and Wikipedia:Notability guidelines. Like much else in Wikipedia, these are often undergoing edits; however, if an article is challenged for removal, failure to satisfy those guidelines is likely to be quoted as a reason for the article's deletion. Any information about men listed here should always comply with Wikipedia:Biographies of living people. The list does not include performers who have appeared on websites or in live shows unless they have also appeared in a gay porn film. Inclusion or removalIn addition to the statements above, the following list more specifically defines who may be included here.
Styles for entries with and without articlesAll the videographies for a performer with pseudonyms should be listed at the first name in the list, even if that is not the most commonly known name or the name used for the title of the article. The use of see in his subsequent listings cross-references the first name; all the pseudonyms for a performer need not be listed at each entry in the list. Only the name with the references needs to be cross-referenced: The name that is the link to an article may be included in the cross-reference:
Unless there is an article on the performer listed here, their name should not be wikilinked. There should never be redlinks in this article. Do not wikilink a name before writing an article on the performer. An article about a person with an identical name to one listed here will be linked here even though the subject of the other article is not a performer in gay porn films. Removing names from the listA name on the list that is not a porn performer must be completely deleted; the name should not be mentioned in the edit summary; nor should it be listed here. The process of using invisible comments detailed below does not apply in the case where there is no evidence that the person was in porn. If the name being removed is properly sourced and there is no question as to whether the person is a performer, it is preferable to format the name as an invisible comment rather than removing it. This will help prevent the same name being added and deleted multiple times. The comment should include the name of the performer, a reference to the source that shows he is a porn performer, and the reason for deletion. If an article about a performer is deleted the name should be removed from the list and not reinserted unless and until an article that meets Wikipedia's requirements is written on the performer. Subsequent editors will then know not to reinsert it until the article about the performer is written. For example, Ralph Woods—who is a porn performer videography—failed an Articles for deletion review. Rather than deleting his entry altogether, it is commented out, using the invisible comments format:
Only one blank line may be used outside the comment, either above or below the text; otherwise, an additional blank line is shown in the list. Multiple blank lines may be used inside the comment between the <!-- and --> marks. Remember to leave the reference/videography information in the comment and add the reason for the name being removed so that the name isn't relisted. Note: To reiterate, there should never be an invisible comment for a name that was deleted for not being sourced as a porn performer. Nor should the name be included in the edit summary; "Removed unsourced name" should be used instead. If the name is unsourced, it should not be associated with gay porn at all; do not list the name on the article's Talk page, either. Article titlesUnless there is already an article with the same name as that of the performer or the performer's name is likely to be confused with someone or something else, no descriptor/modifier needs to be appended to the name for the article's title. If a modifier is need, the convention is to use "(porn star)" after the name. In cases where there are more than two articles with identical names, they should all be listed at a disambiguation page (for an example, see Randy White). See alsoThese are important articles to read and understand before editing this list or writing an article about a porn performer. |
Discussion
Why are those instructions not at the top of this talk page to guide editors? Because User:Benjiboi manually without discussion in July 2009. I suggest we replace them, update them if necessary after the RfC is finished, and ensure that they are followed to avoid future unnecessary conflicts. Is there support for this? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- I support putting this back, either here at the top of the talk, or better, using the newer technology of an WP:Editnotice (which would go at List_of_male_performers_in_gay_porn_films/editnotice) Once the RfC comes to rest, it could be updated to reflect the outcome. Note particularly that these instructions do not preclude all redlinks. ++Lar: t/c 16:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Well, except for the bolded part which says "There should never be redlinks in this article". ;) The preference seems to be for unlinked articles rather than red links. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Good point. I was focusing on the upper part where it says "In order for a name without an article to be included here, there must be a reasonable expectation that an article will be written about the person"... that's the usual wording to justify redlinks but coupled with the bolded text you highlight, it implies a name can be listed (if there is such a reasonable expectation, but no article) but it needs to be bare text, not a redlink. Apologies for my confusion. ++Lar: t/c 17:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Opposed. For the same reasons we don't have extensive instruction creep on every talkpage. These instructions could be useful but are misleading as before I started sourcing this list there were no sources, that was the problem. And users who utilized the talkpage were not the problem. And I was the one who started the editnotice. So the scheme to somehow infer that I'm in any way not interested in having sources is quite misplaced and no, I see no need to have extensive instruction creep on this page for users who generally would never see it. There is some possible language that may prove helpful but frankly it falls in the TLDR category as well as the On-talkpage-never-saw category. -- Banjeboi 19:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- As usual, your claims are easily proven to be false. Please see this version of the talkpage from July 2007. The editing instructions existed on that page well before this, but please take note of the section on that page entitled "Criteria for inclusion" which appears to contain a rough consensus to include only existing articles. Benjiboi appears to have inadvertently missed about a year out of the archive, but having just read through the talk page history, I can assure you that the topic has come up several times before (for example, this comment from Bastique), but this is where it ended up. As you can see from this contemporaneous version of the article, the sources were in the linked articles (as with most stand alone lists). (Prior to this, the list was actually sourced, but to a single gay porn site.) Each section begins with the banner below:
******************************************************************************************************** PLEASE DON’T WIKILINK NAMES UNLESS THERE IS AN ARTICLE ON THE PERSON AS A PERFORMER IN GAY PORN FILMS. ********************************************************************************************************
- What happened to that consensus and the banners that represented it? Oh look, Benjiboi deleted them all. How surprising! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- <yawn> More arm-flailing and revisionistic mythologizing of events all pointing out how someone else must be at fault and therefore your deletions and edit-warring is justified. You've been over-inflating concern about BLP BLP BLP! violations and demanding sources yet now you wish us to believe that the list was fine then and all sourced to one site was the way to go. Please see our policies about verifiability and BLP so you come into compliance with community standards. Your eagerness to edit against consensus, disrupt and do anything but actually work with other editors here - not to mention the constant WP:Drama are tiresome. Perhaps editing in areas on subjects you actually approve of would cause less disruption for all concerned. -- Banjeboi 22:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Benjiboi, please read what I wrote again when you are less sleepy. You seem to have misinterpreted my very brief summary of the article's history as some kind of endorsement of how the article was at one time sourced. What you may wish to address is the fact that you removed the editing instructions form the talk page (without discussion, although no one seemed to have noticed at the time), edited the hidden comments that appeared in every section of the article to remove the prohibition of red links, and neglected to archive several relevant discussions (which may have been inadvertent). We seem to be in the midst of an RfC about something that actually was consensus until you decided it wasn't. I have provided the diffs for anyone who cares to look, yet to seem more interested in continuing your storyline about how I am the cause of the problem. Any comments on those edits? They were only 6 months ago. Did you forget that you had done that? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- DC, you appear to be apportioning blame for something, though I must be missing the point. From what you have said here, I cannot see that you actually have a complaint against Benjiboi. I suggested a RfC on redlinks several times above because I failed to see where a clear prior consensus was; I still fail to see it. However it doesn't matter that much as we now have a RfC which may provide a consensus... in the meantime banging on about Benjiboi seems pointless, unless you are prepared to use a real dispute resolution process, hopefully far away from this talk page. Ash (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Ash, until I walked through the talk page page history today, I was unaware that Benjiboi was responsible for the current situation, so I haven't really been banging on about him for very long. If your comments are going to be mainly editing advice for me, perhaps you can leave them on my talkpage instead of here. If you cannot see how the editing instructions above, the linked discussion and the large banner before every section reflect consensus, I'm not sure what more I can say... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delicious carbuncle, it's hard to take you seriously when you clearly are inventing a past that never happened, alleging that I'm the source of all the problems, well, that's just giving me a lot of credit i guess. I did however completely overhaul the list to source and explain every entry and why it potentially should be a part of the list. You seem to be missing that this list, for years has been various folks vandalize and add nonsense and others attempt to clean it up. Meanwhile discussions on the inclusion has gone back and forth. Until I overhauled the entire thing this list had no sources and that was the main complaint at the AfD prior to your AfD. It's a large list and among the issues it showed was that dozens of people who certainly met GNG and/or Pornbio didn't have articles or the articles were in a poor enough state - and little effort to verify their accuracy ensued - so their articles were deleted without editors actually looking for sourcing. I have been the main clean-upper here and efforts to continue doing so have been largely productive and peaceful except when you and your offsite "comrades" have disrupted with one non-sensical diatribe after the next. OMG a wikilink points to the wrong person!!! Sky .. is ... falling! Instead of just fixing it you create and stir drama - but to give credit you are good at it, you're so good at it you did so at at least admin boards until myself and other editors actually did the work to clean it up. This parallels your efforts in the area altogether. a lot of arm-flailing and accusations and drama while others simply do the clean-up work like mature editors do. -- Banjeboi 23:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- DC, you appear to be apportioning blame for something, though I must be missing the point. From what you have said here, I cannot see that you actually have a complaint against Benjiboi. I suggested a RfC on redlinks several times above because I failed to see where a clear prior consensus was; I still fail to see it. However it doesn't matter that much as we now have a RfC which may provide a consensus... in the meantime banging on about Benjiboi seems pointless, unless you are prepared to use a real dispute resolution process, hopefully far away from this talk page. Ash (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Benjiboi, please read what I wrote again when you are less sleepy. You seem to have misinterpreted my very brief summary of the article's history as some kind of endorsement of how the article was at one time sourced. What you may wish to address is the fact that you removed the editing instructions form the talk page (without discussion, although no one seemed to have noticed at the time), edited the hidden comments that appeared in every section of the article to remove the prohibition of red links, and neglected to archive several relevant discussions (which may have been inadvertent). We seem to be in the midst of an RfC about something that actually was consensus until you decided it wasn't. I have provided the diffs for anyone who cares to look, yet to seem more interested in continuing your storyline about how I am the cause of the problem. Any comments on those edits? They were only 6 months ago. Did you forget that you had done that? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- <yawn> More arm-flailing and revisionistic mythologizing of events all pointing out how someone else must be at fault and therefore your deletions and edit-warring is justified. You've been over-inflating concern about BLP BLP BLP! violations and demanding sources yet now you wish us to believe that the list was fine then and all sourced to one site was the way to go. Please see our policies about verifiability and BLP so you come into compliance with community standards. Your eagerness to edit against consensus, disrupt and do anything but actually work with other editors here - not to mention the constant WP:Drama are tiresome. Perhaps editing in areas on subjects you actually approve of would cause less disruption for all concerned. -- Banjeboi 22:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- What happened to that consensus and the banners that represented it? Oh look, Benjiboi deleted them all. How surprising! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Most of the above is about html comments at the top of the wikitext (which is appropriate). The proper editnotice is not at the link Lar gives, but at:
and there is a discussion about it and a change I requested at:
*That's* where admonishments re redlinks et al belong.
Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
meanwhile... zh:wp
Template:刪除理據:粗劣翻译
提交的維基人及時間:Leon3289 (留言) 2010年2月4日 (四) 06:21 (UTC)
Template:刪除理據:讓我很無言,首先,這個條目是你自己要創立的,不要在一開頭就那邊哀哀叫,第二,翻譯也要翻好一點,第三,請你不要中英不分好嗎!第四,希望有人能把這篇條目做更好的處理。--愛德華-庫倫 (留言) 2010年2月4日 (四) 07:16 (UTC) 我已經改善了翻譯了,請求你不要再刪除它,如翻譯再有問題,請告訴我,我會立即改善的!!!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fungs3309d (talk • contribs)
- Template:意见:这个明显是一个新手,是不是可以想办法帮忙一下……不过我真的很难相信这个是花4个小时翻译出来的 Orz...。 ——快龙☀人过留名 2010年2月4日 (四) 12:04 (UTC)
我个汗...4小时...——— Preceding unsigned comment added by Umbrellaben (talk • contribs)
- Template:意见 — nb: en:Talk:List of male performers in gay porn films#meanwhile... zh:wp. The 英语:wp article is the subject of much discussion, too. Cheers, Jack Merridew 2010年2月6日 (六) 17:48 (UTC)
It looks to be going down ;) Jack Merridew 08:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- I took it to be a zh:AfD; the templates are red and orange icons (none green;) that seem to be delete and comment indicators. The parent-page: zh:维基百科:頁面存廢討論 iwlinks back to en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. I've notified them of this discussion. The zh:article:
- sports a bunch of dire-looking tags. Cheers, Jack Merridew 17:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- The main issue at that debate is that it is a very poor translation from the english, not any BLP concerns. I also note that the French incarnation of this article is blue-link only. Not that these matter too much because different Wikipedias operate differently, but it is interesting to note. ThemFromSpace 18:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Inclusion of František Huf
František Huf is included in this list and featured in one of the images. The main article František Huf makes no mention of a gay porn career. The three sources used in this list are a Czech-language site that really doesn't give the impression that it would be a reliable source, an apparently outdated link, and the IMDB entry for someone named "Boris Tomek". Source or remove? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- This article uses his real name and appears to address him being a (not particularly notable) porn star. Ash (talk) 14:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- That is the first source, which I linked above. I am unable to read it and unable to adequately judge if it is a reliable source, but my impression from looking a the site is that is not. It appears to be some kind of tabloid newspaper, although I don't know if there is an actual newspaper associated with it. Can you supply any information? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry I overlooked your original link. Actually it is a real tabloid newspaper with the highest circulation in that country, some information at Blesk. I am also reluctant to judge it's adequacy as a source though the date of the article leads me to believe the reference is not circular. Perhaps a notice at WP:RSN might help clarify quality before dismissing it as a link? Ash (talk) 17:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, are you suggesting that it is in any way acceptable under WP:BLP to include someone on this list based the sourcing of IMDB, a non-working link, and a tabloid? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- No. However, appropriately quoting a sourced statement from a national newspaper does not sound like an urgent BLP violation. You appear to judging the quality of the newspaper in question without knowing much about it. In this case the newspaper has printed a direct interview with Huf where he talks about earning money in the gay porn industry for the previous three years in order to fund his body-building career; this appears an entirely credible story rather than a second-hand speculative mention in a gossip column or reprinting a fan site or blog. RSN exists to help judge quality of sources, it should be used here rather than your best guess. As for the dead links, perhaps you should try a web archive before assuming they are useless. Ash (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- I've taken your suggestion and checked the page at archive.org - here is the archived page. So now we have two foreign language sources of questionable reliability and IMDB. I'm not sure how you can divide BLP violations into "urgent" and non-urgent. If it's a BLP violation it gets removed, hopefully as soon as it is noticed. I am removing the entry from this list. If you want to follow up on the reliability of the foreign-language sources or find new sources, you are welcome to do so. At any rate, this discussion suggests that the image is not of a particularly remarkable porn performer and should removed even if their entry is re-added. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- The only comment I would add is that unless the information is significant and well sourced enough to be added to the article on him, it shouldn't be added to this list. People most definitely shouldn't be linking to articles on people when the article makes no mention of the person being a male performer in gay porn films no matter how impecable the sources are nor how notable their involvement is (they should demonstrate that in the article if necessary first) Nil Einne (talk) 18:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- Information is routinely deleted from articles of this nature, editors working on the list are not required to also maintain every article it links to. -- Banjeboi 23:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- The only comment I would add is that unless the information is significant and well sourced enough to be added to the article on him, it shouldn't be added to this list. People most definitely shouldn't be linking to articles on people when the article makes no mention of the person being a male performer in gay porn films no matter how impecable the sources are nor how notable their involvement is (they should demonstrate that in the article if necessary first) Nil Einne (talk) 18:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- I've taken your suggestion and checked the page at archive.org - here is the archived page. So now we have two foreign language sources of questionable reliability and IMDB. I'm not sure how you can divide BLP violations into "urgent" and non-urgent. If it's a BLP violation it gets removed, hopefully as soon as it is noticed. I am removing the entry from this list. If you want to follow up on the reliability of the foreign-language sources or find new sources, you are welcome to do so. At any rate, this discussion suggests that the image is not of a particularly remarkable porn performer and should removed even if their entry is re-added. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- No. However, appropriately quoting a sourced statement from a national newspaper does not sound like an urgent BLP violation. You appear to judging the quality of the newspaper in question without knowing much about it. In this case the newspaper has printed a direct interview with Huf where he talks about earning money in the gay porn industry for the previous three years in order to fund his body-building career; this appears an entirely credible story rather than a second-hand speculative mention in a gossip column or reprinting a fan site or blog. RSN exists to help judge quality of sources, it should be used here rather than your best guess. As for the dead links, perhaps you should try a web archive before assuming they are useless. Ash (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, are you suggesting that it is in any way acceptable under WP:BLP to include someone on this list based the sourcing of IMDB, a non-working link, and a tabloid? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry I overlooked your original link. Actually it is a real tabloid newspaper with the highest circulation in that country, some information at Blesk. I am also reluctant to judge it's adequacy as a source though the date of the article leads me to believe the reference is not circular. Perhaps a notice at WP:RSN might help clarify quality before dismissing it as a link? Ash (talk) 17:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- That is the first source, which I linked above. I am unable to read it and unable to adequately judge if it is a reliable source, but my impression from looking a the site is that is not. It appears to be some kind of tabloid newspaper, although I don't know if there is an actual newspaper associated with it. Can you supply any information? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Deletion of all IMDB links
I just cut http://www.missonline.cz/model.php?id=7164 as it redirects to the site-root and added {{citation needed}}. <rote>imdb is not a reliable source and should never be used; a mere extern with no weight re notability and verifiability is all that is reasonable.</rote> The use of ibdb imdb on this list in refs is inappropriate and they should be cut, too. Jack Merridew 19:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree in regard to IBDB, which is an official project of the Broadway League, the producers' organization for Broadway shows. Information in IBDB is based on their records and program listings, which, by union rules, are official and approved by the participants before being published. The same goes for IOBDB, which is run by the non-profit Lortel Foundation. Neither IBDB or IOBDB will accept user-generated corrections or information without documentation and/or verifying it against the available records.
One should not be misled by the similarity in names, these two projects are entirely different from IMDB, which is a commercial operation owned by Amazon.com. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree in regard to IBDB, which is an official project of the Broadway League, the producers' organization for Broadway shows. Information in IBDB is based on their records and program listings, which, by union rules, are official and approved by the participants before being published. The same goes for IOBDB, which is run by the non-profit Lortel Foundation. Neither IBDB or IOBDB will accept user-generated corrections or information without documentation and/or verifying it against the available records.
- That was a typo, above; I meant imdb as in the section header. I am familiar with IBDB and IOBDB and have little issue with them. For the most part I consider them reliable (TBD are sites like AFDB). If there are IBDB/IOBDB links in here, I didn't notice them (or cut them). Sorry for the confusion. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- ;) Jack Merridew 06:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- See Talk:List of male performers in gay porn films/Archive 2#How should IMDB links be handled for this list?. Ash (talk) 00:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- I did. My view is that an imdb link is marginally appropriate for an externs section on an article, in this case about an individual. This will allow someone to go read whatever for themselves. imdb links are not appropriate for use in <ref></ref> tags where they will appear in the references section and the ones on this list should be cut. In short, imdb is not a reliable source (project wide consensus) and they may, and should, be removed from use as refs on sight by any editor. Jack Merridew 04:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Disagree with another blanket change taken, particularly when prior consensus here was to keep these links. WP:RSN shows a general consensus that it is acceptable to include IMDB links for some basic facts. In this case IMDB is being used for nothing more than to show that credits for films exist, there is no particular reason to think that IMDB gets this wrong. Provide one example otherwise. As this does not seem particularly urgent, why not wait until the RfC on red-links completes before winding everyone up with another blanket-change discussion? Ash (talk) 05:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- I've removed them, again; no local consensus is required in the face of the BLP concerns when a source long established as unreliable is involved. I did not remove any entries, yet, but agree with Lar that any now unsourced should go. Jack Merridew 06:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- What concerns? Please point out the cases where a specific BLP concern exists. At the moment you appear to be making blanket non-consensus changes for the sake of it rather than following BRD. Your rationale sounds like a default stance to delete absolutely any sexual or gay related biography on Wikipedia as I can imagine any possible source could be considered suspect by someone, particularly if they do not have to be specific about the issue and they use it as an excuse to ignore BRD. Ash (talk) 06:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Anyone can write any damn thing they want on imdb. We've no business using them as a source for boo. There's a new pot of coffee brewing on this project; inhale deeply. BLPs, and this covers lists of living people, must be reliably sourced and unreliable sources are for the highway.
- I am certainly not anti-gay. I have lived with, worked with, and count many gay people as friends. I am not particularly anti-porn, either; the Hispanic list was enjoyable to tidy-up. So, I've no issue with genuinely notable and reliably sourced content from these domains being present on this project and I've cleaned up and clarified the referencing on a bunch of these lists and articles.
- The afdb links are problematic, too; I just cleaned-up Billy Brandt and am looking at this source and note that it says that if I log in, I can write a review. Another unreliable source. Our new brew is centered around the ideal of a higher standard of sourcing for content. These days, you can dredge up ghits on absolutely anything; most are worthless and many poor sources will be cut. Any articles that have nothing but junk sources (or none;) will be easy picking. Content must be "this tall" to be included on this site.
- Jack Merridew 06:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- I have no intention of implying that any editor here was anti-gay (or anti-sex). I referred to sexual and gay classifications as statements of this nature are most frequently challenged as possible BLP violations.
- For the most part IMDB is being used for the sort of information that can be seen in film credits (such as names of the cast) or read on the back of a DVD cover or found on a publisher's website. This information is not contentious and there seems little reason to reject IMDB as a convenient consistent source of this information. In this scenario IMDB seems sufficient as it is not being used for any potentially contentious biographical data such as sexual orientation, names of children etc. Ash (talk) 06:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- An unreliable source is equivalent to no source. In the big picture, it's actually worse than no source, as it presents a false façade; the appearance of being sourced, but not the reality of being sourced. If anything is to be include on this site, especially content concerning living people, it must be properly sourced. If something/someone is genuinely notable there will be good, solid, and reliable sources other than junk like imdb.
- I see you're edit waring with me. I'm not going to revert you but do hope someone will chip-in here, and restore my improvement to this list. You would be well served by reverting it yourself. Your appeal to BRD and a need for consensus on this talk page holds no water. In such cases as this, the onus is on those who seek to include, not on those critical of the use of a source long established as unreliable. Please note that on Billy Brandt, that while I cut the use of imdb as a ref, I moved it to the extern section and left it in the infobox. imdb in ref-tags will not fly. Enjoy your coffee. Jack Merridew 07:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Edit warring accusation Please raise the matter at WP:ANI. You have made blanket deletions twice and I have reverted you twice, attempted to discuss these non-consensus changes in-between and encouraged you to follow BRD. As you have resorted to making serious allegations against me, there seems little point in discussing further here until you have raised the matter at a proper dispute resolution forum. Ash (talk) 07:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- ANI is not the first step in dispute resolution; talk is, which I'm doing with you in spite of your being totally off base here. Note also that I let your inappropriate version stand, for the moment. Isn't there a link to The Wrong Version on this pages, already? BRD, is an essay; BLP is a policy with consensus. Coffee's ready. Jack Merridew 08:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- I would suggest Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard as a good venue to debate this, but IMDb has pretty much been rejected as a reliable source. AniMate 19:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- ANI is not the first step in dispute resolution; talk is, which I'm doing with you in spite of your being totally off base here. Note also that I let your inappropriate version stand, for the moment. Isn't there a link to The Wrong Version on this pages, already? BRD, is an essay; BLP is a policy with consensus. Coffee's ready. Jack Merridew 08:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Proposed re-wording of PORNBIO
I thought some of the contributors here may be interested in the proposed rewording under discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Pornographic_actors. Your views either way would be welcome. Ash (talk) 14:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Lady Bunny
Should Lady Bunny be on this list? The article on her refers to her by the female pronoun and looking at the talk page it seems Lady Bunny has made it clear this is what she prefers. This obviously isn't a simple matter, for example if Lady Bunny is just a character or persona then it may be acceptable to mention the person behind the character if he won the award. However even if it is a character, as say with Dame Edna Everage, then the character is still female so if the character wins and award or acts then she's surely doing so as a female, even if Barry Humphries obviously is male. Was the award Lady Bunny won for a role played as Lady Bunny? I also notice in the article on her, it mentions she appeared in gay pornography early on, was this as Lady Bunny or someone else? has Lady Bunny ever expressed any opinions on whether she still considers herself male and whether she ever did? Nil Einne (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- She is a drag queen who is very much male and indeed appears in gay porn - and probably proud of it. -- Banjeboi 23:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Creation of new articles for gay porn performers
Ash is hard at work creating new articles for what were previously red links. I had hoped that whoever undertook this would start by creating stubs for only the clearly notable performers (for example, each GayVN Awards winner) rather than attempting to make each former red link into a full article. I have noted some problems with this approach, so I'm going to propose some guidelines here to get the discussion started.
- Sourcing - awards should be sourced to the official sites (use archive.org if required) or industry sites such as AVN. Links to commercial porn sites should be avoided. IMDB may be included as an external link but should not be used as a reference.
- Red links - avoid creating red links, or ensure that links are properly disambiguated for all the reasons discussed here already.
- Awards - awards meeting WP:PORNBIO criterion of "Has won a well-known award, such as those listed in Category:Pornographic film awards or Category:Film awards". Clearly AVN or GayVN awards. Grabby Awards? Which others?
- Videographies - I did a quick survey of female porn performers and they do not seem to contain videographies, so I don't think gay porn performer bios should contain videographies either. Clearly something like the videography at Chris Stone which is currently a list of about 45 external links is unacceptable.
- Recreations of previously deleted articles - create in userspace, if there is any doubt about meeting WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO, ask for comment from deleting admin?
Comments? Suggestions? I'll post a link to this discussion at WP:PORN. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with your first point; the awards need to be verified by a reliable source, preferably the official awards site, and not the unreliable IMDB. I agree with your second point. Awards meeting WP:PORNBIO are generally thought to be those that are notable and have a Wikipedia article, ie. the ones at Category:Pornographic film awards. Awards at List of gay pornography awards don't count unless they have their own article. WP:PORN discourages videographies in performer articles due to their length, although this is at odds with the guidelines for actors in general. Long lists of external links are indeed unacceptable. Previously deleted articles should only be recreated if there is no doubt they pass WP:GNG or WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 16:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm adding a couple of points that missed earlier:
- Links - As in any other article, direct links in articles should be avoided. Direct links to porn sites are unacceptable.
- Studios - The article should be about the performer, not about the studios with which they are involved. Unless the performer is directly involved in the ownership or management of the studio, there is no need to include the studio or production company. Avoid formations like Performer appeared in "Name of film" (Name of studio, 2010).
- I think following these guidelines would go a long way toward defusing a lot of the debates that have sprung up around the issues of BLP, COI, and promotional editing in the area of male performers in gay porn films. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm adding a couple of points that missed earlier:
- "Direct links to porn sites are unacceptable" - Exactly who defines which sites are porn sites? I know of no examples where shock sites have been used as sources, please point out an example. Attempting to ban links to pornography sites, particularly for articles on pornography, is a direct contravention of NOTCENSORED. At this point you appear to be promoting argumentative special "guidelines" for the sake of disrupting improvement of this article. Stop. Ash (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to ban links to pornography links. I'm suggesting that direct links to porn sites are unacceptable in the body of articles on porn performers. WP:NOTCENSORED is not relevant to this discussion, and, so far as I know, no one is suggesting that biographies of gay porn performers are not welcome on Wikipedia. I've put forward some guidelines which I think are fairly straightforward and common-sense for discussion here with the aim of reducing the needless debates that occur here and at individual articles. I'm hopeful that we will hear from a wider variety of editors and can reach some agreement about this. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- "Direct links to porn sites are unacceptable" - Exactly who defines which sites are porn sites? I know of no examples where shock sites have been used as sources, please point out an example. Attempting to ban links to pornography sites, particularly for articles on pornography, is a direct contravention of NOTCENSORED. At this point you appear to be promoting argumentative special "guidelines" for the sake of disrupting improvement of this article. Stop. Ash (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- If you expect other editors to make informed comments, please explain what a "porn site" is and why banning such links would not be a contravention of NOTCENSORED. You have failed to identify an article where such links were considered "unacceptable", it seems pointless to create new rules for non-existent problems.
- As for your belief that biographies of gay porn actors are welcome, you have already stated you consider them a "special" case (requiring more control than BLPs for murderers) and we have seen a recent spate of pre-1990s porn star BLPs where awards in their names could not be identified being deleted purely on this basis, regardless of other sources being produced. The fact that very few documented awards existed in the 1980s has not been accepted by persistent deletionists as a rationale to take a less hard-line approach with interpreting PORNBIO. Ash (talk) 00:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm going to wait for comments from other editors rather than respond to you directly since you seem to be taking this as some sort of attack. Inflammatory rhetoric and distortions of my words aren't going to help us reach agreement. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) That looks like a lot of "special" requirements you are making up. I am increasingly uncomfortable with the "special" interpretation of BLP, V, N... that some editors have created to set a special high quality bar for gay porn actors compared to any other kind of biographical article. Such literal interpretations and "special" treatment seems to be purging this topic off Wikipedia and neatly pandering to prejudice making an effective censorship. The speedy deletion of Paul Carrigan (the second most credited actor in the history of gay pornography) is my best example to date of the tendency to let Wiki-lawyering over-rule common-sense for this topic.
Taking your points separately:
- Videographies No. There is no justification for treating a Videography for a porn star differently to any other genre apart from prejudice, particularly if selected for their most notable films. If you take a look at someone like, Russell Tovey, all of his appearances on TV, radio and stage productions have been included. Any argument to not list films for an actor is as ridiculous as refusing to list books for an author.
- Sourcing No, WP:RS applies across Wikipedia, there is no need for "special" requirements here. Note that "official" site is not that meaningful, if a source does not appear to meet WP:RS then that needs to be judged on a case by case basis.
- Awards Refer to List of gay pornography awards, by definition inclusion on this list means they are notable. I suggest that is our guide for awards with the caveat that it is not currently exhaustive and there are some existing award article pages that need to be linked in, including pornography awards that are not specifically gay but may be awarded to actors who appear in gay pornography. There may be a need to use a category rather than a fixed list. There is no need to create a different list on this talk page.
- Recreations Only if the sourcing is weak, otherwise the issue is moot. Again, there is absolutely no need for "special" requirements, the guidelines as for any article being re-created apply. If the article is about the same person as that previously deleted then the guidelines suggest that the creator contact the deleting admin, this is good practice, no need for new rules here.
- Redlinks No. WP:REDLINKS and WP:BLP applies as with the rest of Wikipedia. "Special" rules are not needed and censorship by the backdoor is not welcome. Ash (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- These are actually pretty common-sense suggestions which are based on policy and what appears to be the norm for articles about female porn performers. I'm surprised by some of the reactions here. Biographies of porn performers, whether gay, straight, male, or female, are special and should be handled with extra care. Using words like "censorship" and "prejudice" is unhelpful and inflammatory. I had hoped that we could have a reasonable discussion here and avoid future arguments about articles, but that seems unlikely to happen. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- When I was collaborating on and improving controversial articles on topics such as recently arrested murderers, mass cult suicides or graphic S&M practices, no "special" rules were needed, everyone seemed to think that standard guidance such as BLP or RS were enough to control any abuse or potential risk of defamation. I am unclear why labelling an actor as having appeared in pornography would need special rules when labelling someone a murderer is adequately covered by the standard guidance.
- Please note my phrasing, I have not accused any editor of censorship or prejudice, my statement was "neatly pandering to prejudice making an effective censorship" this is not the same thing. I have no intent of making unfounded allegations. Ash (talk) 00:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- You also said "censorship by the backdoor is not welcome", which could easily be read as an accusation, but my point was that using words like "censorship" and "prejudice" is unhelpful in any case, accusations notwithstanding.
- I think it should be fairly obvious to most people that mistakenly labelling someone as a murderer is not a good thing and can have negative real-life consequences when done on one of the most widely viewed web sites on the internet. The same goes for labelling someone a porn performer, although I am in no way equating the two. You have the added risk in this case of mistakenly labelling that person's sexuality, which -- like it or not -- is an issue for many people. Add to that the privacy issues for porn performers - real names, birth dates, medical conditions, etc. Add to that the tendency of over-zealous fans and paid editors to inflate/promote the work or accomplishments of their favourite performers/clients.
- I'm hoping to avoid all of these issues by agreeing on a set of guidelines here which will prevent edit wars, arguments, and accusations as Wikipedia's coverage of gay porn performers increases. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- You may be surprised to hear that most people would think that being mistakenly accused of murder is probably even worse than being incorrectly accused of being an award-winning successful porn star. Current Wikipedia guidance is sufficient for murderers, nobody invented special rules. Have you thought that your suggestions may have more weight if you worked on improving or creating some articles and could point to example good articles as a result of your contributions rather than campaigning for new reasons to delete articles? Alternatively you could create a list of notable gay porn stars which you think would be suitable for articles, say those who have won awards and where reliable sources are available to back that up. Such a list would avoid the arguments you say you are concerned about. It could be called something like "List of male performers in gay porn films". Ash (talk) 19:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Your sarcasm is not helpful. Please try to focus on the proposed gidelines and moving this forward. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- You may be surprised to hear that most people would think that being mistakenly accused of murder is probably even worse than being incorrectly accused of being an award-winning successful porn star. Current Wikipedia guidance is sufficient for murderers, nobody invented special rules. Have you thought that your suggestions may have more weight if you worked on improving or creating some articles and could point to example good articles as a result of your contributions rather than campaigning for new reasons to delete articles? Alternatively you could create a list of notable gay porn stars which you think would be suitable for articles, say those who have won awards and where reliable sources are available to back that up. Such a list would avoid the arguments you say you are concerned about. It could be called something like "List of male performers in gay porn films". Ash (talk) 19:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) There seems to be a long-standing misinterpretation of WP:BIO and that is in order for an actor to be considered as notable in the eyes of WP:PORN they MUST pass WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG. This simply isn't the case. WP:BIO states that the must pass the Basic Criteria and at least one additional criteria including WP:ARTIST among many, however "failure to meet these (additional) criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Many porn performers also have other areas of interest including erotic dancing, film production, and directing.
WP:BIO is a special form of WP:GNG and its guidelines may be substituted for WP:GNG. Passing WP:GNG is never mentioned in WP:BIO as a requirement, and like the name states, the General Notability Guidelines is a generic guideline, while Notability (people) is topic specific. Making a notability determination often involves a good deal of common sense and not necessarily "strict adherence to the rules." - Stillwaterising (talk) 16:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delicious carbuncle first you ignore suggestions to talk first and shoot later, and proceed to delete dozens of sourced entries that clearly demonstrate notability based solely on the premise that they simply couldn't be notable because ... the article isn't written yet. Meanwhile your track record at attempting to delete content and articles in the area shows you have little to no interest in finding sourcing at all but instead are intent on simply deleting whatever you can despite easily found sourcing. Then instead of maturely discussing issues you again personalize the issue and now complain that they very articles you insisted had to be written are now being written. After three months of this "help" which amounts to a lot of complaining, disruption and drama you are now proposing extra hoops just for this subject area, No, no and no. Wikipedia is not censored, the same rules apply for all content and IMBD is especially useful for our readers who want to see a fuller videography which we would not have as part of this list. In short, you have shown poor judgment in how to conduct yourself in a collegial manner and arguably the same poor judgment in what content in this area should be preserved or not. Ash should be commended for their diligence and willingness to create articles to appease this latest attempt to marginalize and diminish this area of content. It's a shame all the drama ensued but clearly those with less emotional investments in this content area are better suited to judge what content is encyclopedic and how to present it. A thoughtful discussion in how to note which actors pre-gay awards should be included was my hoped for discussion on this page but clearly your agenda will have to ride over all other concerns as one thread after the next is all about new ways to delete content you apparently don't approve. I'm afraid this just seems like more of the same and that's unfortunate and unhelpful. -- Banjeboi 16:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing out BIO Stillwaterising. Unfortunately well established admins such as Epbr123 (talk · contribs) seem inflexible and unable to accept your argument as shown in a number of recent AfDs where this has been the core debate. Even when PORNBIO is discounted (such as with the deletion of Paul Carrigan), the same old zealous deletionists make sure that a hardline interpretation is followed, which in practice would lead to the deletion of half the biography articles on Wikipedia if applied to other genres. My concern is a lack of even-handedness. In a topic with a natural bias toward American porn stars (notice that most of the awards mentioned are USA based) and actors in roles after 1995 (as anything before that has a lack of on-line sources) means that genres with high cultural and historic impact such as British gay porn of the 1980s has only a tiny number of biographic articles. Wikipedia continues to be an unwelcoming place for adult gay topics and while deletionists have the upper-hand, article contributors will have to spend half their time arguing the toss again and again rather than working on improvement. Ash (talk) 17:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Stillwaterising, you are misreading WP:BIO. The section entitled "Basic criteria" is a summary of the general notability guideline. The section entitled "Additional criteria" refers to criteria that must be met in addition to the basic criteria. This is clarified in the section entitled "Special cases". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- That was my understanding as well. There are important differences between WP:BASIC and WP:GNG, GNG says "received significant coverage in reliable sources" and the Basic Criteria says "has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject". There's a huge difference between "been the subject of" and "significant coverage". The guideline for subject specific notability guidelines (like BIO) and GNG is that a subject passes notabilty if it passes either guideline, but not required to pass both. - Stillwaterising (talk) 04:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- You are wrong. In the "In a nutshell" section at the top of the page, it says "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". I think you will recognize that wording as a summary of WP:GNG. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Since when does This page in a nutshell override what BIO actually says? Clearly the sentence is not in accordance with the rest of the guideline. In a nutshell, if an article passes GNG it doesn't matter if it passes BIO (or PORNBIO). But specifically, if it doesn't pass GNG then it should pass the Basic Criteria and at least one additional criteria. Notice that nowhere in BIO is GNG even mentioned. The second paragraph of GNG states "A topic is presumed to be notable enough to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below. A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more subject specific guidelines (including WP:BIO) listed on the right." - Stillwaterising (talk) 00:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- You are wrong. In the "In a nutshell" section at the top of the page, it says "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". I think you will recognize that wording as a summary of WP:GNG. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- That was my understanding as well. There are important differences between WP:BASIC and WP:GNG, GNG says "received significant coverage in reliable sources" and the Basic Criteria says "has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject". There's a huge difference between "been the subject of" and "significant coverage". The guideline for subject specific notability guidelines (like BIO) and GNG is that a subject passes notabilty if it passes either guideline, but not required to pass both. - Stillwaterising (talk) 04:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Stillwaterising, you are misreading WP:BIO. The section entitled "Basic criteria" is a summary of the general notability guideline. The section entitled "Additional criteria" refers to criteria that must be met in addition to the basic criteria. This is clarified in the section entitled "Special cases". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
"Crazy James" from Big Brother
He ought to be on the list. He was in a gay porn, after all. Anybody else remember that? --24.20.129.18 (talk) 04:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- This was James Zinkland, see "US Big Brother Housemate's Gay Porn Past Revealed". Pink News. February 22, 2008. Retrieved 2010-02-19. As far as I can tell he does not have a WP biographical article. The quote from dirtyboyvideo is "If you've tuned into CBS's "Big Brother 9" this season then you're already familiar with "Crazy James". This sexy, tattooed mega-hottie was smoking up our screens long before his TV debut! He biked across the nation straight to our doors and straight into the asses and mouths of a few of the lucky boys in our porn stable! Here he is challenging Colin to try and get to the base of his massive cock. After watching this video you'll see for yourself that its more like Big Brother 10"!"
- Based on these sources he may be notable enough for a celebritard type article but he is probably more of an enthusiastic amateur rather than a notable "porn star". Ash (talk) 11:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)