Jump to content

Talk:Jenna Haze

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by J. Ponder (talk | contribs) at 03:04, 4 July 2007 (→Another third opinion: reply on Myspace). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconBiography Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Sexual Orientation

For the longest time the info box was bisexual and then all of a sudden there's this revert war that she's heterosexual. The question should not be where is the proof that she's bi but where's the proof that she's hetero? Even before she got into the industry she claimed she was bi. Keep on removing the sexual orientation and I'll keep on reverting it. --Dysepsion 15:15, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As for the proof? Here it is: [[1]] --Dysepsion 16:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC) Another question wat is here Ethnicity? First it was Spanish and German now she is Japanese and white. The name Corrales sounds like spanish... She also not look like a Japanese....[reply]

You are correct. There is a lot of clearly faulty info floating around, unfortunately. Not only does she not look part Japanese, her bio still listed at Jill Kelly Production's website backs up that she is a mix of German and Spanish (as well as Irish).
Additionally, Jenna's correct height, weight, and measurements (5'2", 92lbs, 32-22-32) are available on her own website. Regarding her first porn scene, in the "about me" section of her website she mentions Oral Adventures of Craven Moorehead 8 as her first, and in the Q and A section she lists Service Animals 4. Given the production date I found listed on the boxcover of Oral Adventures, and the date given by another member for Service Animals, it appears they were both shot on the same day. --Alsayid 04:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DVD box covers

rm boxcovers (cannot claim fair use due to revised guidelines) --Joe Beaudoin Jr.

Can someone explain this to me; as long as we use thumbnails it ok, correct?

Unfortunately, this is not the case. Here's the line from WP:FU: "Cover art. Cover art from various items, for identification and critical commentary (not for identification without critical commentary)." Since we're not giving critical commentary for those videos, we need to remove them. Questions, comments or concerns? -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 18:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I just needed clarification --vossman 04:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Glad that you brought it up -- and as equally glad to clarify for you! -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 05:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna's official fanclub

The guidelines state that it's appropriate to have a link to a fan site, and since http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Jenna_Haze has long been her official fanclub (where she posts), I think that one should stay. --Alsayid 05:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I wasn't sure about that, since it only said "Jenna Haze Fan Club" (it didn't mention anything about officiality, whatsoever). So, if it is official, then reinstate the link. Thanks, Alsayid. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 15:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "jennahazefan.com" website

To whomever is adding this link to the External links section, please do not do so. It has no pertinence in the external link section, as it is neither official nor is it a resource this article uses. If anyone sees it, the link is to be removed on sight and the user(s) in question notified about WP:NOT and WP:EL. Thank you. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 15:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Why was the interracial part edited out

When a porn actress does her first interracial scene after several years in the business it's a monumental moment. I don't understand why it was edited out, since it's quite notable. The fact that Jenna Haze returned to do boy/girl scenes for the first time in several years, is trumped by the fact that it's her first interracial scene ever. While it is notable that she's returning to do boy/girl scenes, it's not as big of a deal since she's already done them dozens of times. It's also annoying that not only was the mention of her first interracial scene edited out, but the name of the movie itself(Jenna Haze: Darkside)was edited so there's no frame of reference to the remaining portion which states that she's done her first boy/girl scene in years. Whomever edited this stuff out has done us a disservice, and I believe the page should be reverted back to what it was before they so badly edited it.Aoa8212 22:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • What I find curious is why it ought to matter at all? If you were to look back in ten years, would the fact that Jenna's first interracial scene was so long coming count for anything? Because that long term perspective is how I feel one should approach making edits to the artilcles - ignore the mundane cruft and focus on the larger picture. The fact that she returned to doing boy/girl after severals years would be notable at that point... the fact that it's also with a black male probably won't be. Tabercil 00:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, especially since that's only one of several scenes she does in the movie. --Alsayid 00:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, guys, can you not understand that Jenna has already done boy/girl scenes so seeing her do them again is not such a surprise. However when an actress has a policy of not doing interracial scenes at all and then she suddenly does one it causes a sensation, and there's speculation if it's a one-time deal or if it will become standard practice. Obviously if an actress has always done IR scenes than it's not as big of a deal.

The best analogy I can come up with is when Michael Jackson performed at the Motown 25th anniversary special. It was and is notable because MJ first performed his signature Moonwalker dance on this show, not because it was MJ's first TV performance in years. Similarly Jenna Haze's Darkside movie is notable because it contains her first and perhaps her only scene with a black male actor. All the other sex acts she performs with white actors, she has already done several times before in her movies. I truly think that the page should be reverted back to reflect that.Aoa8212 10:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to offer a couple of counter points. The first is that Jenna didn't have a verifiable policy of not doing black guys. If she'd never done an Asian guy before, that wouldn't mean she had a policy of not doing Asian guys. The second is that we shouldn't be speculating on what kind of scenes she will or won't be doing in the future. We really need to keep in mind Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. --Alsayid 19:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black male actors are frequently used in American pornography, Asian males are not. Therefore if an actress has never performed with an Asian male actor, it is most likely due to demographics, rather than a personal policy of not doing Asian men. The same cannot be said for black men. I don't see why we have to be so PC that we can't mention that the IR scene which is a first for Jenna is causing a buzz. As long as the editing is not done in a way which denigrates or stereotypes a group of people, I don't see what's wrong with telling it like it is.Aoa8212 14:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You missed my point. It's not up to you to decide that Jenna had a "policy" of not doing black guys, whether you believe it or not. On a blog or in a chatroom that's fine, but shouldn't be used as a rationale here. --Alsayid 20:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jenna Haze did have a policy of never doing interracial scenes of which she was heavily criticized for a couple years back. There was an interview on it somewhere that wasn't on a blog or chatroom but a "reputable" website within the industry(if you can call it that). When she finally did do an interracial scene, it was big news in the adult industry. Refusal to do interracial scenes by bigger name porn stars are notable. Controversy surrounding interracial scenes can be seen in other articles of actresses such as Taylor Rain and Jessica Darlin. Whether or not it's included I don't really care. But it just seems that there seems to be a double standard surround this article. Just my two cents. --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 20:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but she didn't have a verified policy against doing interracial scenes. She has said she'd have no problem doing an interracial scene with someone she found attractive, which apparently has happened. No big deal there. --Alsayid 22:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So explain why "interracial scenes" are mentioned in the examples above and not this one and I actually was not referring to the interview which is posted on the lukeisback.com website. --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 22:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that those pornstars have said openly that they don't approve of interracial scenes at all. Jenna hasn't (I wasn't reffering to LukeIsBack, either), and it's their opinions against interracial that are included in those articles. But beyond that, the Jenna article seems to be better written in general, IMO. --Alsayid 00:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. The reason why I chimed in is that I understand Aoa8212's argument. For an actress who's done nearly 300 scenes according to IAFD and she's done only one interacial scene seems more notable or in the same league as her getting back to b/g scenes. If a statement in an article remains for several months and all of a sudden it is removed without explanation, I understand why it would raise a few eyebrows. I also found it very suspicious that it was removed by an anon user whose sole edit on here is the removal of that statement. It makes one wonder if it may have been vandalism? [2] In the future if someone happens to re-add her interracial scene, the best course of action would be to discuss it here on the talk page and come up with a consensus again instead of going back to a revert war. But like I said, I don't care either way. As a fan, I'm just glad she's going back to b/g scenes. --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 02:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the article one of the references listed is here interview at RogReviews, if you read that interview you'll not her reasoning behind not doing interracial was that she had as of yet not found a black pornstar she was atracted to physically, if she met one, then she'd be happy to do a scene: "If I found a guy I was attracted to, no matter what his race, I would do a scene with him." For this reason, I think the fact that it's her first BoyGirl scene is more important then her first interracial. She never had a specific no interracial policy, where as it is a policy change to start doing scenes with males again. Riphal 00:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC) Riphal[reply]

Whether or not she had an official policy of not doing scenes with black actors is irrelevant. The fact remains that she had never done a scene with a black actor up until Darkside. That is a fact and it is notable even more than her returning to do boy-girl scenes, because she's already done over a hundred boy-girl scenes. Why not give readers of the article that knowledge?, why the need to censor it out because it supposedly violates some politically correct racial taboo?. If someone edits the page to say that she's a racist because she didn't do scenes with black actors in the past, or that she shouldn't do scenes with black actors, then by all means it should be changed to reflect a NPOV. However, Wikipedia is not supposed to be for editing out factual info which happens to offend your sensibilities. Aoa8212 23:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dead?

Why does it say she died on 4 July 2006? More vandalism?

She did die I'm sorry guys I didn't read the article yet

Any links to her death?Tanner65 08:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She's not dead. It's vandalism --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 16:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've once again removed the "external links" section for reasons (from WP:EL) already noted in the edit summaries. Just for clarity, I'm going to add those reasons here.

The Official Site does not belong in this section because it already exists in the infobox.

The other two links (one to myspace and one to yahoo groups) are inappropriate because they are social networking sites and forums. Valrith 01:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Links to MySpace and Yahoo Group are not inappropriate: they are just links normally to be avoided, but not inappropriate. They must be used when they have relevant content that is of substantially higher quality than that available from any other website. And here, in both cases, these pages not only fit with this statement, they have relevant content about Jenna Haze really hard or even impossible to find in other websites.
The Jenna Haze MySpace page has relevant information about her, so it is important put an external link to this site.
It is appropriate to have a link to a fan site. The Yahoo Group is her Official Fanclub, where she posts, so it must be a link to her Official Fanclub in Yahoo Group in the External Links section.
Purplehayes2006 02:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:EL specifically states that sites requiring registration are of limited use to most readers. Yahoo requires registration for this group because it is age restricted. While Wikipedia is not censored, this site clearly should be avoided because of the registration. Betacommand has a good handle on sites meeting WP:EL. I do not expect to see this one linked again. Morenooso 01:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yahoo Groups are sites NORMALLY to be avoided, it is not prohibited their use. As guidelines say, if the content of that page is relevant and difficult to find in other sites, then it is appropriate its use. It is obvious that the content in that Yahoo site is absolutely relevant and really hard or even impossible to find in other sites. Besides, in the same way, the guidelines say that it is appropriate include a link to a major fansite, and that Yahoo Group is her OFFICIAL Fan Club, where Jenna Haze posts. It is an Official page about the subject of this article: Jenna Haze.Purplehayes2006 14:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yahoo Groups not only requires registration, but is an open forum. It contains nothing a properly written "Good Article" will have. Yahoo Groups cannot be an official anything, and is entirely inappropriate to link to. Valrith 22:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but it is the Official Jenna Haze Fan Club; I don't understand your tone; tell me, did you read all the posts there written? can you tell me that the info exposed there every week is not relevant? do you know that Jenna Haze herself writes there? that it is Jenna Haze herself who says that it is her Official Fan Club?. Include one link to a major fan site is appropriate WP:NOT. This is her Official Fan Club and her major fan site, you like it or not; Jenna Haze is posting there since 2002. A link to a Yahoo Group normally is avoided, but if it is a major fan site, and it is a site with relevant info, then we can link to that site. That's the key. There is relevant info in that site about Jenna Haze, including info written by Jenna Haze herself, and it is her Official Fan Club; so it is allowed and appropriate have a link to that Yahoo Group: her Official Fan Club. Purplehayes2006 23:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion Summary: Do include Myspace, don't include Yahoo groups. Remove the Google video.

  • Yahoo groups requires registration before any viewing at all can be done. This is just plain bad, so it should be removed.
  • Myspace is a kind of 'official website' with the lack of any other. Keep it. Does not require registration and is informative about the person in question (which is the goal of an external link - further reading!)
  • The Google video is just an interview. One cannot list this video but not list all other interviews and features. Remove it it, except when using it as a source - it should be moved to references then.

--User:Krator (t c) 22:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

  • Generally speaking, an official site is appropriate for the external links section, regardless of whether or not it's in the infobox. Many people (including myself) scroll down to the external links to find official site information.
  • However, I agree with deleting the MySpace and yahoo groups link. If (and only if) the MySpace link is a bona-fide official resource, keep it. Otherwise delete it. Also we shouldn't be linking to places that require a login account. On the other hand, I have seen other external links requiring login pass muster without complaint from other editors, as long as a note ("requires login") is present on the link description.
  • I agree with above, remove the google video.
  • I notice also that some awards were reverted as being "invalid". I think awards from the same page should be listed in one line, but not removed. If the cited source is reliable (and in this genre, the one cited looks OK), then sourced facts shouldn't be removed from an article.

That's my opinion. -Amatulic 22:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awards won by a film do not belong in an article about actors in that film (compare with the Awards section for cf. Elijah Wood; he starred in the film The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, which won Best Picture, but it is (appropriately) not included in the list of awards he has won.) Valrith 04:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Different standards are applied for pornographic actors regarding their notability compared to mainstream actors. Maybe its a stretch, but perhaps this suggests awards won and where they are included do not necessarily correlate to where they are included or not with their Hollywood counterparts. I am not taking a side on this and really don't care much, but I do think this is a valid point. With a major film, the film itself is notable, but with pornographic films, many, maybe most, are not notable, while the actors in them may actually be notable. So if a film won awards, but that film does not warrent inclusion in wikipedia, but an actor who was in it does warrant inclusion, perhaps those awards do deserve mention in the actors article? Russeasby 04:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A film an actor was in might deserve, as you say, mention in the actor's article, but it should still not be found in a list of awards _won by the actor_. Valrith 03:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jenna Haze Darkside IS her movie. But I think that it is a good idea put the achievements for this movie in a different place than the "Awards" Jenna section. Anyway, it is important reflect the Awards for this movie, for the great importance that this movie has; for that I've create a section with this intention.Purplehayes2006 14:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another third opinion

  • I agree completely that general myspace links should be avoided. But in the case of a living person who keeps a myspace page I think it is acceptable in some cases. For instance here, she does not seem to have her own official website (which would certainly warrent inclusion), lacking an official site her myspace page seems to serve that purpose for her and should be kept.
  • The yahoo groups, generally linking to discussion forums is basically a no go, plus the need for registration is an issue as well. The fact she is active in responding there though does make me wonder if it is perhaps worthwhile in including, does she actually run it, or an agent or official representative of hers run it? Those would indeed be arguments in favor of including it, if it does indeed have some "official" purpose. But did not and have no plans to join it to find out for myself. I lean towards not including it though.
Yahoo Groups are sites normally to be avoided, not prohibited. As guidelines say, if the content of that page is relevant and difficult to find in other sites, then it is appropriate its use. And in this case fits with that statement. Besides, in the same way, the guidelines say that it is appropriate include a link to a major fansite, and that Yahoo Group is her OFFICIAL Fan Club, where Jenna Haze posts. It is an Official page about the subject of this article: Jenna Haze.Purplehayes2006 00:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The video links I see no basis for keeping, unless they are used as a citation for something in the article.

Russeasby 02:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, updates to my opinion. I see now she does indeed have an official site, it just oddly was not in the external links section. And I see the argument about that now (had seen it before but got sidetracked and forgot about it). Given this I see no good argument for keeping either myspace or yahoo links (though myspace is borderline still and I would be neautral on it). But the office site most certainly should be moved to the external links section, in addition to the other links in the info box. I strongly suggest removing them from the info box and adding them to the External Links section. Or if you absolutely have to have them in both places, thats okay, but either way they should be in the external links section per common practice. Russeasby 02:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have written already about why the Yahoo Group link should be in External section. About the MySpace link, I will say that it is a link normally to be avoided, but not inappropriate. It must be used when they have relevant content that is of substantially higher quality than that available from any other website. And here, this page, and the page in Yahoo Group (her Official FanClub) not only fit with this statement, they have relevant content about Jenna Haze really hard or even impossible to find in other websites.Purplehayes2006 00:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should think that they are links normally to be avoided BUT not inappropriate. It is not prohibited their use. Indeed we MUST use them in this case for all what I said before, and what I said is just what guidelines state.Purplehayes2006 00:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that the Myspace should be included is not a valid one. It does not matter if it the official Jenna Haze Myspace page and that she posts there. Just about everyone who has a Myspace posts there, there is nothing different about her Myspace. Your argument could be made about any Myspace page; it fits into the general rule of being unacceptable. The Myspace link is just self promotion and spam. It is not used as a source in the article. It would only be acceptable to use the Myspace if Haze was responding to a notable event that she was involved with and it was sourced in the article. Sources should be reliable and independent, which a fan group, official or not, is not. The only reason the Yahoo group should be on is if it also directly sourced in the article. Idioma 03:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A question

Doesn't she look like Gwen Stefani?

No. You're probably looking at pictures where they have similiar makeup application. 67.121.114.110 23:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previously, a third opinion was requested for the content dispute between User:Valrith and User:Purplehayes2006. Those opinions were posted and still the revert war between the two editors continues. Dismas|(talk) 03:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me do a rough summary of the opinions and third opinions about the External links:
  • Valrith: remove official site (as redundant to infobox), myspace, yahoo group (per WP:EL)
  • Purplehayes2006: keep myspace, yahoo group, official per WP:EL
  • Morenooso: remove yahoo group because it requires registration
  • Krator: Do include Myspace, don't include Yahoo group.
  • Amatulic: keep official site even if redundant, delete yahoo group, delete myspace unless proven official
  • Russeasby: keep official site (possibly remove from infobox), remove yahoo group, borderline on myspace
It seems there's a consensus to remove the Yahoo group, keep the myspace, assuming it can be proven official, and to keep the official site, even if it's redundant with the infobox. It seems the "officialness" of the sites is the major issue, which is in accordance with Wikipedia:External links. It also does seem like a lot of opinions have been gathered, and it is time to make a decision. But let me ask one more question:
Purplehayes2006, what makes you think the myspace and yahoo group sites are "official"? Is there a place on the official site that links to them and says they are also official? Is there any other reliable source that says they are official? See, on http://www.jennahaze.com/bonus.php I instead see "This is the one and only site dedicated to Jenna Haze ..." which rather implies the others aren't official. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.jennahaze.com is the official website of Jenna Haze... but she can has other official sites of different kind: a MySpace page, a Fan Club, etc.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jenna_Haze&oldid=142378639"