Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography

"Roughies" revisited, and "Nudie-cuties"

If anyone is interested in writing on the historical American porn genres of "Nudie-cuties" and "Roughies" (I'm pretty sure Russ Meyer worked in both genres early in his career), I've just come across this, perhaps, useful quote in my Japanese studies. "Coincidentally, rise of the eroductions occurred almost parallel with that of the American "nudie-cuties" (i.e., harmless naturist and peekaboo flicks), the more innocent forerunners of the "roughies". Roughies lived up to their nickname by sexploiting not only teasy nudity but - almost without exception - sadism and rape, usually of women. Main difference between Japanese and American genres was the latter's filmmakers could eventually reveal unlimited amounts of pubic hair/genitalia..." {{cite journal |last=Fentone|first=Steve|year=1998|title=A Rip of the Flesh: The Japanese 'Pink Film' Cycle|journal=She|volume=2|issue=11|pages=p.5}}

Reliable sources

I think we need to establish which sources are reliable for porn star articles. I've listed some of the most commonly used sources below, so if we can gain consensus on whether each one is reliable, maybe we can write a guideline at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography page.

1. Interviews at lukeisback.com
2. Cited material at lukeisback.com, eg. [1] (currently used in the Jenna Jameson FA)
3. AVN.com
4. AInews.com
5. XBiz.com
6. Interviews at Rogreviews.com, eg. [2]
7. Biographical info at iafd.com, eg. [3]
8. Adultdvdempire.com
9. Adultfyi.com, eg. [4]
10. XFanz.com, eg. [5]
11. Excaliburfilms.com, eg. [6]
12. Eros-ny.com
13. Pornvalleynews.com
14. Gamelink.com, eg. [7]

Epbr123 (talk) 13:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Could you give me some time to think about this and respond? I was away in Berlin for the Venus show when you posted this question and I'm surprised no one else from the project has chimed in. Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, sorry. Your opinion would be very valuable. Epbr123 (talk) 14:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I missed seeing this on my watchlist (at least not until Morbid chimed in), but I'll do some thinking on it as well... some of them are clearly (IMO) reliable (e.g., AVN which I believe at least one mainstream source has called the trade magazine) and others are less so. Tabercil (talk) 16:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Right. There's a lot there to chew over so I'll take this in chunks, so expect multiple posts on the topic.

• AVN is reliable period since it's the leading industry trade magazine. The New York Times called it "the Variety of the US porn industry" ([8])
• XBiz and AInews look like they aim to be similar to AVN in that they focus on the news, so I'd say they can be considered reliable.
• IAFD should be treated exactly the same as IMDB.
• Eros-NY is an e-zine (as stated here). As such they'd be the same as reliable as any other ezine such as Salon. (And speaking of Eros, has anyone checked to see if the links to it still work?)
• Gamelink & Excalibur are highly suspect in my eyes, if only because I don't readily see where they'd get their info from...
• Xfanz is owned by the same people as XBiz, so I'm tempted to say it'd be reliable. What do we use this for? Just the news stories??

More as I have a chance to mull over the other sites. Tabercil (talk) 22:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to do it in chunks too.

• First, from interacting with both staff, I would say XBIZ and by extension XFanz is more reliable than AVN. XBIZ clearly denotes whenever something is a press release and its own articles are not just mere fluff. I trust the writers there more than AVN.
• My problem with AVN, especially when it comes to notability issues, is that they write articles on and review movies from companies in which they take advertisement dollars from, which sometimes leads to COI and independence issues. I also view their staff as being less competent (prone to much more turnover) than XBIZ. Their awards are also subject to politics.
• I help run IAFD so I won't offer an opinion on its reliability. People can submit additions and corrections (but it should be adequately sourced if there's a conflict) but we have to approve it and sometimes we go to 2257 information on hand to confirm things like birthdate and height. The addition of movies into the database relies on existing reviews so numbers of DVDs that are actually underreported. We also once checked what IMDB is doing by having a fake movie for a performer in the database and sure enough, it showed up in IMDB quickly after.
• Luke Ford is simply unacceptable. Too many accusations of selective editing and publishing of interviews from the subject. I wouldn't trust any cited sources from him without checking it myself and then I would cite to that source rather than him.
• Gamelink, Excalibur, Eros-NY, ADEmpire are vendor sites that I don't consider reliable.
• I know Rog personally and now he doesn't edit out his interview unless the subject asks him to not publish something. He's technically self-published but his interviews tend not to be controversial either.
• Gene Ross (Adultfyi) and Gram Ponante are both former managing editors of AVN which lends to the theory that they are experts under WP:SPS. However, I don't view Gene as being any more reliable than Luke but Gram is okay even though he's not as funny as he thinks he is.
• AINEWs, I don't know Steve Nelson (the owner) that well but their site seems to be mostly press releases. If it came down to an issue of notability, I would not accept AINews.
• AdultDVDTalk blog interviews. I know the interviewer well and he's actually a published music critic in his normal job. He's too lazy to edit his interviews and it's mostly fluff anyway, so there's not much controversy in using them.
• Pornvalley news is a self-published blog with no editorial oversight run by a guy named Ray.
• The Naughty American of course is run by Naughty America. I wouldn't take their articles too seriously but they rarely post anything controversial either.

Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• Huh. I didn't know that about IAFD checking back to 2257 records. How often do you do that, always/sometimes/rarely?? Because if you're doing it frequently enough, then the birth date and height info for starlets caught up in the post-2257 records could be considered accurate, and that would be from when... post 1995? Tabercil (talk) 13:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

When we mention Luke Ford, there are several possibilities we have to consider: the person by the same name, the people who own and run the original lukeford.com site, and the new owner of lukeisback.com. The last I'll state as being probably the most reliable; the interviews in XCitement magazine (which counts as a published source) are all conducted by Cindi Loftus and she's the new owner of lukeisback.com. Tabercil (talk) 12:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• The most frequent reason for IAFD to go to the 2257 records is to confirm a death by looking up a real name. Sometimes 2257s are used to confirm birthdates since actresses like to shave a couple of years here and there. Movie reviewers get 2257 from companies in case they want to publish screenshots and stills for their reviews. If I don't have something to check against (since I don't get everything), I ask other reviewers to confirm. All variations of "Luke Ford" from Scott Fayner to Luke Ford to Cindi Loftus are unreliable for me. Cindi's work with xcitement has editorial oversight, but not her work as the fake luke ford. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

With regards to Morbid's comments about AVN's conflict of interest, it's no different from any other commercial news organization. The New York Times accepts advertising for its paper, and I'd say the majority of its ads will be from local businesses; said businesses can also potentially be the focus of a news story by the Times. The same is especially true for narrowly focuses media; if you pick a copy of Guitar World, you'll find most of the ads within will be from guitar companies and closely related firms (e.g., string manufacturers, effects makers). Ideally advertising and editorial in those organizations are two separate entities within the same organization. That same conflict is why Consumer Reports doesn't accept advertising - so there's no appearance of bias. Tabercil (talk) 22:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Since I don't get much into the hardcore scene, I'll basically just defer to you guys on that and go with whatever you think is reliable. Having said that though, I'd like to hear (read) what you have to say about Caskets on Parade. While looking into the source for Debbie Boostrom's death date, I decided to look through their FAQ and such. They seem to make a real effort in order to find sources for their info. Dismas|^(talk) 13:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, one more which I was just reminded of: University of Chicago's Playmate listing. I've been in contact with the maintainer of the list in the past. They get their info from the magazine itself or from official sources (in the case of upcoming Playmates) such as the Playboy Channel. Everything that I've double checked with my own collection has been correct. Dismas|^(talk) 14:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I also want to list some foreign trade journals that I sometimes cite to with respect to European pornography. As far as I know they are legitimate publications, (not self-published). I'll amend with the links later.

• machomedia.hu (Hungarian), machomedia.net (English) - Hungarian trade journal
• xstarnews - France trade journal
• German Adult News - not sure if that's the main German trade journal or not
• Deltadivenere - Italian trade journal
• AVN Europe - Based out of Budapest but no archives

I'm not sure if there's a Spain trade journal or Czech one (although Czech Business Weekly regularly reports on porn) since they are Barcelona and Prague are centers of productions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

For Consideration XCritic Page

Wanted to submit to the WP Pornography Team that we believe XCritic has finally broken through the threshold of WPNotable. Our current top 10 list of women porn directors has been picked up and covered by AVN and XBiz. This on top of our 9K reviews, porn star blogs and steady stream of news. Because of conflict of interest, of course we can not create the page, nor would we. So we submit to the Project our inclusion for your consideration. Thanks. Gkleinman (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC).

• I'm still not sure about the standalone notability yet. However, information about the XCritic spinoff should be mentioned in the DVDTalk article. I'm surprised no one has done that. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  • You're more thank welcome to add it to the DVD Talk article... Although the site is officially run by "Chris Thorne" so putting it on another bio page wouldn't be ideal. I do think that we've hit standalone notability. Aside from the preponderance of reviews, Penny Flame & Stoya Blogs, we are seen as a 'trusted source' for reviews and news. Gkleinman (talk)

-- Also XCritic has been thanked in the credits of a few films including Not Bewitched XXX also the cover for The Sunny Experiemnt has a quote from XCritic. We're a voting member of the XRCO and Don is voting for the AVN awards. That doesn't include any of the nods/etc which existed when the adult content that is now XCritic was part of DVD Talk...Gkleinman (talk)

Jane's Guide has now reviewed XCritic as 'Quality and Original'. Since they are considered an authority in the space does that tip the scale for getting a page? Jane's Guide Review of XCritic Gkleinman (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC).

removal of image

Please visit Ramba (comics) and weigh in. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 04:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed change to WP:PORNBIO

I'd like to propose we change criteria 1 of WP:PORNBIO to:

Has won or often been nominated for a notable award, such as those listed in Category:Adult movie awards and Category:Film awards, or being the centrefold in the major pornographic magazine Playboy.

This would bring it in line with the criteria for "Any biography", which states "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them."

It would also mean that Penthouse and Playgirl centrefolds are no longer automatically notable. There are currently too many one-sentence stubs on Penthouse Pets, which are unlikely to ever be expanded, and there's the potential for dozens more to be made. On the other hand, Playboy centrefolds tend to be more notable, and most currently have articles of a reasonable length.

Is there anybody "automatically" writing these dangerous articles? All they have to believe is that the individual is "interesting," see notability (people), and in theory they're in. Xophorus (talk) 01:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to propose we remove criteria 3. Appearing as an extra in mainstream films or music videos, or appearing on porn documentaries or talk shows that often feature porn stars, shouldn't be enough to establish notability. Epbr123 (talk) 21:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd keep criteria 3. As long as criteria 3 can be verified by a reliable source (beyond tertiary sources like imdb for example or the primary source itself), I feel these crossover appearances are signs of notability in the porn world. As for criteria 1, I see the adult awards as being cheap and nominations as being even cheaper since the winners are rarely reported by independent reliable sources. If I had it my way, only winners should be notable since the awards are of low notability in general. Porn doesn't need a separate Susan Lucci qualifier, hell... Susan Lucci did not even need a multiple nominations qualifier for WP:BIO since she had so many RS discussing her perennial nominations. However, regarding to your proposal, I'm concerned about the rewording of serious nominee to simply often nominated for a notable award, especially when it comes to awards that have laundry list nominations like FAME, that seems to have at least 20 per category. All you need is two categories to qualify for criteria 1 under that scenario. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind only winners being notable, although we would have to get the "Any biography" criteria altered. If we can't get consensus on removing nominations fom the criteria, maybe the wording "Has won or often been a serious nominee for a notable award" would solve the FAME issue. We could change criteria 3 to say "Has had multiple appearances in notable mainstream media, verified by reliable secondary sources". Epbr123 (talk) 23:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

That's Criterion Three, not Criteria 3, see the Chicago Manual, and any dictionary. Once again Wikipedia is getting involved in excising what it simply doesn't like, for reasons too easy to relate to conventional morality. Consensus is being used to manufacture authority that doesn't exist here, everything is done by consensus, not actual authority. You require a porn star to have some kind of verifiability, yet you deny, shall we say, the organs of the top of the industry. It is common sense that, for different reasons, all of the following should be allowed as verifiability: Playboy, Penthouse, and Hustler. Hustler is in fact more involved with awarding industry awards than either of the other two. Yet I don't see them being mentioned here. Is that because they're too naughty? This is porn we're talking about. See my related remarks at Notability (people). What we need is not more deletion, but more inspection: firstly, if the article is too slight and remains so, then it becomes something that should be cleaned up, so what, that's why it's called work. But creating an editorial policy that is going to keep an article out for theoretical reasons is just the empowering of anti-creativity, shutting somebody up before they speak. Secondly, there would be a need for a study of each of the major publications, and studios, of porn; this would lead to greater understanding of who is doing what. Do you think Playboy is the most reliable publication? It's good enough, it has lots of good characteristics, but as I pointed out, Hustler knows more about industry standards. Xophorus (talk) 01:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

On the subject of dropping Criterion 3, it definitely seems to me that were Wikipedia to drop it, Wikipedia would be acting AGAINST the function of a good research instrument. It's just wrong-headed to disallow something for the reasons given. It is also against the stated purpose of Wikipedia, which is to make these connections possible. Xophorus (talk) 01:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem with nominations has been hashed out before - see here for the most recent discussion that I'm aware of. As you said, the "Any biography" criteria clearly says "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them." (emphasis added) so we pretty much have to have some acknowledgment of nominations as a source of notability in the criteria. And the problem with the "multiple appearances" criteria that you're proposing is that it's vague ("how many nominations are we talking about?") and begs number creep (see WP:BIGNUMBER on that count). Mind you, the "Any biography" criteria is distressing vague on that count. As for trimming out Penthouse & Playboy as specific criteria and clarifying it to be Playboy centerfold specific, I don't see any objections on that count, though we might have to spell out the "why" behind Playboy centerfold being notable in and of itself via a note at the bottom of WP:BIO. Mind you, once we have a rough consensus here, I'd still want to put a notice on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) to give the wider community a chance to comment. Tabercil (talk) 04:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Just curious, what's the distinction between a "major" and "minor" magazine, and why would Penthouse be excluded? Zithan (talk) 16:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Judging by our current articles, models who have been Playboy Playmates tend to have received more media coverage than those who have been Penthouse Pets. We have many stub articles on Penthouse Pets, but most Playboy Playmate articles have enough sources to be of a decent length. The Penthouse Pet criteria also doesn't seem to have the backing of the wider Wikipedia community and has often been ignored in recent AfDs. Epbr123 (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2008

(UTC)

This is to miss an important point about notability (people), which is that being interesting is alone reason to include someone - don't blame me that that is there. "Interesting" is perhaps an ephemeral quality, but if we are talking about something in which a picture is worth a thousand words, creating a policy that does away with an entry for purely literary reasons would be the beginning of keeping the whole subject out of the encyclopedia. Xophorus (talk) 01:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey folks, we have to have a subject that allows a person to be included because she has "interesting" breasts, or even a merely "interesting" boob job, or he ejaculates further than the next guy. You are going to require they get an award for this, before you allow it to be written about? All you have to do is see that is true, and you know why you read the article. Believe it, there are going to be people who want to know more about the different boob jobs that Pamela Anderson or Jenna Jameson had - that is quite sufficient reason to list them.Xophorus (talk) 01:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, there are differences between the different magazines, that inform the whole nature of the industry. Playboy is more popular, partly because it is less pornographic, and because it hooks into many other popular industries: in other words, it is less pornographic in more than one way. There are more editors here who seem to like it - is it because you are not really researching this field? Once again, Wikipedia is wrongfully being made of consensus, not authority. Hustler tends to have far more to say about industry standards, vis-s-vis awards, so you can't exclude Hustler, if you want to require "awards" as a criterion for notability. The very reason to include Penthouse is that it is less commercial than Playboy, and less political than Hustler. There are other magazines that should perhaps be included, to keep the picture as complete as is needed. I have arrived on the porn scene to find I think that a bunch of prudes are using casuistry to keep out something distasteful to themselves. Xophorus (talk) 01:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

There is another aspect to pornography that no one has mentioned, and that is the way it dovetails with mainstream medicine: both positively and negatively. There are evidently a variety of types of boob jobs; this could be made possible to research. There are exercises that cause men to ejaculate further, and over-the-counter vitamins that cause them to ejaculate more: if this information could be found in an at least somewhat reliable source, a lot of mail fraud could be averted. That's not Wikipedia's job to avert, but it is a reason someone might look it up here. Again, if it is a plausible reason to consult Wikipedia, it is probably a plausible reason to allow an article about it.

Xophorus (talk) 01:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Support the initial reason for this putting this on to poll. Toughening the criteria for inclusion would be a good idea, just as that of all the lgbt articles should do too.

I disagree, see above. The criteria are already so tough that you are not allowing the industry to be taken seriously. There is a danger that if this discussion were to become policy, all you would have is a few big names and an article about Playboy.Xophorus (talk) 01:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Creating so many pages, not to mention with consequent multi-issues on each page, defeats the encyclopedic point. It ends up reading an dictionary/encyclopedia of pornography. Which is fine on someone else's personal website or weblog, but wikipedia's is not for such purporses. "Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not a textbook. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter."

I fail to understand how creating more pages "defeats the encyclopedic point." The very opposite is true. Xophorus (talk) 01:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Or as a compromise, maybe all these short articles can be tagged on to the same article with the relevant descriptive line in tow. Lihaas (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

This is at least real editorial thinking. However there is one problem, and that is, in this field, that at least one picture should be included for each article, and a general article will create a generalization to be followed; elements that don't follow the generality may be excluded, thus resulting in the deletion of a much needed dirty picture. Xophorus (talk) 01:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Is media coverage going to be the only criteria? For example, how would one distinguish from a notable PORNBIO from another country (where Playboy is not popular) say, in China, where the media is conservative and hesistant in reporting such controversial topics such as pornography?Zithan (talk) 16:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Here again I point out that the criterion of "interesting" is stated to be ALONE reason enough to include something, see Notability (persons).If it is "interesting" by porn industry standards, or for any other reason, it should be included. Face it, the situation is vague, and requires taste. You can't make taste a policy matter, or this subject is outa here.Xophorus (talk) 01:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

We can't write an article on someone if they don't have media coverage. Epbr123 (talk) 17:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

That is sheer nonsense. This is a classified topic, it by definition doesn't get media coverage.

Also, this is bad research. If somebody makes a revolution in strip dancing, and chooses not to go on film, we are to exclude her because she doesn't participate in media we bless? Too much policy is being created here, just let the editors write, and let another editor edit it. Xophorus (talk) 01:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Xophorus (talk) 01:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have clarified. My query is that mainstream newspapers and magazines usually do not cover porn in countries where the media is still conservative. I can quote several Asian nations where porn actors are iconic, but newspapers and magazines are not ready to give them their 15 seconds of fame. So how do we determine reliability of sources for these cases? Sorry for asking again, I just need to get this cleared up so that systemic bias is not inadvertently added in to the criteria. Zithan (talk) 18:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

If someone doesn't know the first thing about what you're talking about, it might not be your fault. Create another article, in which they can find out what they may need to know. Figuring out how to this is where Wikipedia editors show their creativity. Let the Chinese spoonfeed themselves when they are adult enough for solid food. We can show the horse the water, but it's not our fault if it won't drink.Xophorus (talk) 01:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there a way we can we distinguish the iconic Asian porn actors from the regular ones? If there is, how can we write neutral, reliable articles on them if they are never mentioned in newspapers, books, etc. Epbr123 (talk) 18:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly my point. Requiring media coverage is a way to reduce the research down, not build the subject up. Xophorus (talk) 01:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I will try and research on it. Meanwhile, I'm ok with the ammended draft. Regards, Zithan (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Not sure I understand the point of criterion 3; if they're being mentioned multiple times in mainstream media, wouldn't that be a result of either a) already satisfying criteria 1 and 2, or b) being notable for some other reason (e.g. WP:ENTERTAINER, WP:CREATIVE)? Chewyrunt (talk) 03:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Good point... Tabercil (talk) 03:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Naw... Criteria 3 is a lesser standard than Criteria 1 of WP:ENTERTAINER. Crossover roles are usually minor due to porn's stigma although they are presumably heavily reported on in porn press. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a revised proposal, based on what seems to be the middle-ground of opinions here so far.

Criteria 1: Has won or often been a serious nominee for a notable award, such as those listed in Category:Adult movie awards and Category:Film awards, or has been the centerfold in the major pornographic magazine Playboy.

Criteria 3: Has had multiple appearances in notable mainstream media, verified by reliable secondary sources.

There are WP:BIGNUMBER problems with criteria 1, but there will be problems with whatever crirteria we choose. If Zithan finds a way of recognising top foreign performers, that can be added to the criteria. Epbr123 (talk) 11:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

On criteria 3, is the last clause necessary if verification (by reliable secondary sources) is implicitly required anyway on any assertion of notability? I just want to somehow emphasise the point that relying on tertiary sources like IMDB and the primary sources are not enough to establish that they are notable mainstream appearances. Perhaps the explanation can be put in the footnotes of WP:BIO? Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is required anywhere that the assertion of notability has to be verified by secondary sources. We never insist on award wins being verified by secondary sources. The award has to be notable, but the winning of the award doesn't have to be. Likewise, the mainstream media has to be notable, but the appearance in the mainstream media doesn't have to be notable, according to the current criteria. Epbr123 (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

"Policy" is needed as to when to write "criteria" and when to write "criterion."

I think most of this discussion is really about what to exclude, not what should be included, and I think that most of what is being said here is an effort to subvert the present editorial policy that notability (people) allows for "interesting" to alone be a criterion for inclusion.

A situation of unending Revert Wars is being set up by all this discussion, especially given that what we are talking about is not even something the allowability of which is generally conceded. It is going to be altogether too easy to say "that isn't allowed!" Pornography requires a liberal attitude! Either we are liberal about this, or we are not. If we are not, we are going to have.... emasculated porn! Who wants that? Xophorus (talk) 01:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)