Talk:Jenna Jameson

Dead link

This article has plenty of deadlinks at present. http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Jenna_Jameson Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Bisexual

The "totally hetero" quote is sarcastic and obviously intended to be funny. She is bisexual.--74.176.43.252 (talk) 22:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

No it isn't. [1] Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 23:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, the label "bisexual" is as bad as "terrorist." Is this another bisexual Women who have sex with women who doesn't like the bisexual or lesbian label.--74.176.43.252 (talk) 23:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

That's not your decision to make. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 01:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Kafziel. Biographies of living people may not use LGBT or religious categories unless the person publicly self-identifies with the label(s) in question and it is relevant to their public lives. She no longer identifies as a bisexual. Unless you can prove that she still does and was actually being sarcastic, then the categories should not be in there. Asarelah (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Does this article really qualify for a featured article status?

I directly get to the point. I don't think this article qualifies to be a featured article.

1) Is the subject of this article really that important? Wikipedia is read by millions of people and thousands of children. The home page content should be thoughtful and intuitive. Is an article on a porn star really worth reading by school going children?

2)Style is not enough. An article should not be promoted to the status of a featured article just because its well written. The subject and the content, as well as its usefulness should also be tested.

3)And actually, it's not even well written. Some repetitive information, random list and unneeded photographs make this a very untidy article.

This is my opinion and I am very sure that none of this points is biased against porn stars and the porn industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meetsangvikar (talk • contribs) 18:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

You say you're not biased against porn stars but your first point has everything to do with her being a porn star and whether school children should be reading about a porn star. Do school children need to know such intricate detail about various battles that happened in wars which aren't even covered in their history texts? Probably not. But we have articles on them anyway. Wikipedia is written for everyone. Not just school children. As for your other points, if you feel it can be better written, then BE BOLD and fix it. You obviously had enough interest in the subject to read it. So why not fix it? Dismas|^(talk) 18:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)