add |
|||
Line 61: | Line 61: | ||
::::An unsourced assertion that an individual is a pornographic actor is a clear and unambiguous violation of WP:BLP policy - and per policy, such unsourced assertions must be '''"removed immediately and without waiting for discussion".''' This isn't open to negotiation. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 03:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC) |
::::An unsourced assertion that an individual is a pornographic actor is a clear and unambiguous violation of WP:BLP policy - and per policy, such unsourced assertions must be '''"removed immediately and without waiting for discussion".''' This isn't open to negotiation. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 03:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC) |
||
::::: You don't need references for this article due to the references being in the notable article. If the person is not notable, then they do not deserve to be in this list. The references for them being porn actresses are in their aforementioned article, and it's redundant to have to require a ref just to list every single person. We are not a bureaucracy here. It is not a BLP violation to call a duck a duck. These people participated in pornography and then went on to other movies and films,a nd that's exactly what this article is attempting to portray. Please, someone from the other side, explain your viewpoint.[[User:Tutelary|Tutelary]] ([[User talk:Tutelary|talk]]) 03:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC) |
::::: You don't need references for this article due to the references being in the notable article. If the person is not notable, then they do not deserve to be in this list. The references for them being porn actresses are in their aforementioned article, and it's redundant to have to require a ref just to list every single person. We are not a bureaucracy here. It is not a BLP violation to call a duck a duck. These people participated in pornography and then went on to other movies and films,a nd that's exactly what this article is attempting to portray. Please, someone from the other side, explain your viewpoint. Additionally, '''what person is being called a porn actor without them being one?''' In their articles, the lead elaboratively demonstrates that, and I have yet to come across one that doesn't. What person is not a porn actor but is on this list?[[User:Tutelary|Tutelary]] ([[User talk:Tutelary|talk]]) 03:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:14, 3 August 2014
Pornography List‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Ron Jeremy
Ron jeremy is missing a large number of films — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.89.147.129 (talk) 06:32, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Shu Qi
Shu Qi is not a pornstar, she just did some naked poses.--91.104.71.94 (talk) 05:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Format
Gonna format this as a table, so that it can be sorted by any of the given categories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.188.1 (talk) 18:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- I have not done the above, as converting the large body of text into the format of a table proved difficult. Perhaps someone with better regexp-fu could take on this task.
- Someone should certainly make it sortable, the order is suboptimal (an alphabetical list should be by surname). 78.150.111.74 (talk) 19:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- Table looks good, what happened to the sorting? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
What about television?
Anyone object to changing this list to include television productions and not just movies? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 04:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Although it is not clear what you mean by "television productions", which is a very wide concept, but if you actually mean to say Made-for-TV films, I am favourable as these are legitimate films and as per title are "mainstream films" provided we indicate in a parenthesis that these are "Made for TV films". But if you mean appearances as regular actors or actresses in some television series or appearance in a particular episode on a certain television series, I am not favourable for their inclusion here on this page. It will be counterproductive and dilute the effectiveness of our page. But of course a totally separate listing under a separate page title could be contemplated for such roles in TV series and in episodes. werldwayd (talk) 04:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- The first person that came to mind is Ashlyn Gere who was a character in the tv scifi series Space: Above and Beyond and also the X-files. So yes, I am including episodic TV series. Why would they dilute the list if they appeared on a nationally broadcast show? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 06:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- I say diluted, because once this is allowed, we may be flooded with minor appearances in series in hundreds of cable and low budget series nobody watches. A brief look at present list shows most are well-known films. Of course the example of series you gave like Space: Above and Beyond and also the X-files are renowned, but guidelines should be in store for notability on series we may include. In any case, if such series will be included, we must certainly rename the page to a more appropriate title, and clearly indicate TV series as such when we list them. werldwayd (talk) 09:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 09:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- It seems like we are in agreement on this; I too do not wish the list to "be flooded with minor appearances in series in hundreds of cable and low budget series nobody watches". If we limit television appearances to broadcast (meaning major network) series and then of course state this at the top of the list and in the editor notes, do you feel this is adequate explanation? I'd also like to split the list up and add an alphabetical style TOC list from a layout/formatting standpoint to facilitate ease of viewing and Wikilinking.
- By the way, in addition to my Ashlyn Gere example, I would include the appearances of India Summer and others in the series Sons of Anarchy in the list. Even though its a cable series, do you feel it merits inclusion? On the other hand, I would have a hard time justifying the inclusion of Brandi Love's single appearance (as Herself, not a character) on the reality tv show Lizard Lick Towing. Does that make sense? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- I say diluted, because once this is allowed, we may be flooded with minor appearances in series in hundreds of cable and low budget series nobody watches. A brief look at present list shows most are well-known films. Of course the example of series you gave like Space: Above and Beyond and also the X-files are renowned, but guidelines should be in store for notability on series we may include. In any case, if such series will be included, we must certainly rename the page to a more appropriate title, and clearly indicate TV series as such when we list them. werldwayd (talk) 09:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 09:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- The first person that came to mind is Ashlyn Gere who was a character in the tv scifi series Space: Above and Beyond and also the X-files. So yes, I am including episodic TV series. Why would they dilute the list if they appeared on a nationally broadcast show? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 06:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- I don't feel it's fair to discriminate against television. Because by the logic shown here, then what about all the documentaries that have been made over the years in which porn stars appeared? It's very simple - just as you don't want documentaries diluting the pot, simply specify "scripted television". That eliminates realty TV (i.e. Family Business, the making of Debbie Does Dallas, stuff like Playboy's Foursome and things like Ron Jeremy being in The Surreal Life). As far as adult-oriented cable series, well I'm sorry - blame the makes of Game of Thrones and Boardwalk Empire, but explicit is in. And an acknowledged former porn star is credited in the opening of Game of Thrones from Season 2 onwards (she plays Tyrion's girlfriend), and Sasha Gray made her move into the mainstream in part by getting an ongoing role in the acclaimed Entourage, while Traci Lords was a regular on at least one series after making guest appearances in sitcoms like Married with Children. Simply say "scripted" and leave it at that. Either that or create a TV equivalent of this list. 68.146.70.124 (talk) 18:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- Fair enough, it makes sense for TV appearances to be included. So do we make a new list or rename this one? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- I suggest renaming of the page. Just add a new column called say "media" in which we specify film, television or documentary. I also suggest adding theatrical works onstage. Many have appeared onstage in such plays as well and gained popularity. As a new title, I would suggest: "List of appearances by pornographic actors in non-pornographic works"
Great idea, but is it a list of "appearances" or "actors"? Think we can add sorting at the same time? It was supposed to have it. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
What about theatre?
By the way this brings in the question of theatre and musical comedies. It is well worth our while to create a page for pornographic actors appearing in theatre werldwayd (talk) 04:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 04:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- OK, fair enough. Like who? I can't imagine there being enough to justify a separate page/list. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 06:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
BLP and sourcing
Re WP:BLP I have removed all the red link and non linked living names as noen of them were sourced and the subject matter means we have to be careful here. By all rights all the names should be deleted until a reliable source can be found for them re our core living people WP:BLP policy and given that articles such as List of performers in gay porn films and List of African-American pornographic actors have reliable sources for every single entry.♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 04:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- Good idea, but the Tag is now unneeded. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- Why is it unneeded. This article was nothing mroe than a massive BLP violation, implying that living ppl who work in mainstream films are porn stars too without a single reliable source. I have removed all the names and only names with good refs and of dead people should be restored♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- Oh boy Squeak, why do you make so difficult to WP:AGF about your efforts when you are so disruptive? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 01:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Nope, Scalhotrod, I am not being even slightly disruptive. If you havent recently read the BLP policy please do so, removing the names of people who are alive from porn list articles when those people have not been reliably sourced is not disruptive but a positive contribution. Please become more BLP friendly, its a core polcy and you cannot stop people enforcing BLP by claiming it is disruptive to do so. What is of course disruptive is reinserting the names of living people who have been removed citing our BLP policy without sourcing them as was requested and you have done this twice today so be careful before making rash disruption claims, you might as well say our BLP policy is disruptive. You need to assume good faith on my part, at the end of the day I am doing this on behalf of every living person on these lists who wasnt reliably sourced. Why is this concern bad faith exactly? And why is removing the names of living people unsourced from porn articles disruptive, exactly. Please answer me quoting policies and guidelines rather than just expressing your opionions without reference to what these policies and guideliens actually say. Nowhere does it say enforcing BLP is disruptive and nor is an assumption of bad faith an adequate response to a BLP violation challenge, but I am sure you are aware of this already after so many years here. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 02:16, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Could you give the excerpt from WP:BLP that you are using to justify your deletions? --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Nope, Scalhotrod, I am not being even slightly disruptive. If you havent recently read the BLP policy please do so, removing the names of people who are alive from porn list articles when those people have not been reliably sourced is not disruptive but a positive contribution. Please become more BLP friendly, its a core polcy and you cannot stop people enforcing BLP by claiming it is disruptive to do so. What is of course disruptive is reinserting the names of living people who have been removed citing our BLP policy without sourcing them as was requested and you have done this twice today so be careful before making rash disruption claims, you might as well say our BLP policy is disruptive. You need to assume good faith on my part, at the end of the day I am doing this on behalf of every living person on these lists who wasnt reliably sourced. Why is this concern bad faith exactly? And why is removing the names of living people unsourced from porn articles disruptive, exactly. Please answer me quoting policies and guidelines rather than just expressing your opionions without reference to what these policies and guideliens actually say. Nowhere does it say enforcing BLP is disruptive and nor is an assumption of bad faith an adequate response to a BLP violation challenge, but I am sure you are aware of this already after so many years here. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 02:16, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Oh boy Squeak, why do you make so difficult to WP:AGF about your efforts when you are so disruptive? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 01:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Sure, Bob K31416. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Challenged or likely to be challenged states "Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources."
Then the next section Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced states "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards. Note: although the three-revert rule does not apply to such removals, what counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory material about living persons should consider raising the matter at the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on the exemption. Administrators may enforce the removal of clear BLP violations with page protection or by blocking the violator(s), even if they have been editing the article themselves or are in some other way involved. In less clear cases they should request the attention of an uninvolved administrator at Wikipedia:Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents." ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 02:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- It appears that you are removing the material because it is contentious and unsourced. First off, what is contentious about the material? --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Well the contentious is only from the second section but I have no issues saying that there may be living people who are mainstream actors and are being falsely accused here of having been porn actors without a reliable source and that may adversely affect their careers. Many people who are not involved int eh porn industry do not want to falsely be labelled as if they were. I ahve to say I dont think there is a clearer example of contentious than this article because it also has mainstream films as subject matter but any porn lists can be seen as contentious. For instance their are many very conservative governments in the world. What if someone who was incorrectly on one of our lists was denied entry to one of these conservative countries because their customs had wrongly identified this person as a porn worker based on one of our wikipedia porn lists. So contentious, definitely but even if it wasnt BLP compliance is required as the first section makes very clear. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 02:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Re "Well the contentious is only from the second section" — It's in both sections of WP:BLP that you excerpted.
- Re "I have no issues saying that there may be living people who are mainstream actors and are being falsely accused here of having been porn actors" — Then there is no contention and the WP:BLP excerpts that you gave do not apply. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- You are right that both sections mention contentious material and this is contentious material so of course BLP applies. Why do you think it would not apply here? Why are you claiming a wrong accusation of being a porn star directed at someone who is not a porn star is not controversial? I am baffled here. lets be clear, this material is being challenged and it is controversial. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 03:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Well the contentious is only from the second section but I have no issues saying that there may be living people who are mainstream actors and are being falsely accused here of having been porn actors without a reliable source and that may adversely affect their careers. Many people who are not involved int eh porn industry do not want to falsely be labelled as if they were. I ahve to say I dont think there is a clearer example of contentious than this article because it also has mainstream films as subject matter but any porn lists can be seen as contentious. For instance their are many very conservative governments in the world. What if someone who was incorrectly on one of our lists was denied entry to one of these conservative countries because their customs had wrongly identified this person as a porn worker based on one of our wikipedia porn lists. So contentious, definitely but even if it wasnt BLP compliance is required as the first section makes very clear. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 02:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- An unsourced assertion that an individual is a pornographic actor is a clear and unambiguous violation of WP:BLP policy - and per policy, such unsourced assertions must be "removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". This isn't open to negotiation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- You don't need references for this article due to the references being in the notable article. If the person is not notable, then they do not deserve to be in this list. The references for them being porn actresses are in their aforementioned article, and it's redundant to have to require a ref just to list every single person. We are not a bureaucracy here. It is not a BLP violation to call a duck a duck. These people participated in pornography and then went on to other movies and films,a nd that's exactly what this article is attempting to portray. Please, someone from the other side, explain your viewpoint. Additionally, what person is being called a porn actor without them being one? In their articles, the lead elaboratively demonstrates that, and I have yet to come across one that doesn't. What person is not a porn actor but is on this list?Tutelary (talk) 03:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- An unsourced assertion that an individual is a pornographic actor is a clear and unambiguous violation of WP:BLP policy - and per policy, such unsourced assertions must be "removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". This isn't open to negotiation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)