Talk:Sibel Kekilli

Semi-protected

I will semi-protect the page for a few days due to recent vandalisms. Kudret abi 05:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 04:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

List of porn films removed

The list of porn films previously in the article violated WP:BLP because it was unsourced. It also violated WP:UNDUE because Sibel Kekilli is now overwhelmingly known as a reputed mainstream actress and not fro her porn work; per the policy, "an article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." I've removed the list.  Sandstein  11:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

There was no need to delete the list. A reader has the right to know about the movies Sibel worked in, be it mainstream or pornographic movies. Editors like you(Sandstein) have tried to make the page of Sibel Kekilli look deceiving in terms of real information to which everyone is entitled. The list of pornographic movies by Sibel Kekilli carries proportionate weight in terms of the value of the information to many potential readers of her bio in wikipedia and hence I propose reinstating it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.255.15 (talk) 23:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you're proposing that, then I will register that I oppose it as WP:UNDUE. It is not about anybody's supposed "rights" to information which the state of an article on Wikipedia cannot possibly affect their access to. I am entirely familiar with the sort of motivations that we often encounter in people determined to plaster an article like this with the subject's "omg porn" background, and I will not be humoring these. —chaos5023 (talk) 00:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I do agree with unsigned, the fact that an actress that now is a mainstream European actress did not one but several porn movies, I think is very relevant and interesting. I honestly believe that all the public information of a a public individual should be provided. For instance now that US porn actress Sacha Gray is making more and more mainstream movies/tv series, should we also forget her porn past? I was curious about Sibel Kekilli not because of her mainstream career but becasue of her porn past (as I bet many people are, at least in the US where she is not well known right now [2011]). Her porn past is not in doubt, and can be cited very easily to any of the adult databases, so why try to hide it or censor that information. it is not about shock or anything, it is about irrefutable facts. If information about "private" sex tapes is available for mainstream actresses like Pamela Anderson or pseudo-celebrities such as Paris Hilton and Kim Kardasian, in this case Sibel Kekilli got paid ( I assume since she worked with professional porn actors) to take part in adult movies, so it is not even a privacy issue but pure censorship, so I second reinstating back that information (User talk:Dantt777)11:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The "irrefutable fact" of her having had a career in pornography is already noted, and more than suffices to address the topic. To include the itemized filmography is to assign undue weight to it, as each entry would necessarily be allocated as much space as Gegen die Wand, and her notability is overwhelmingly derived from her mainstream career. —chaos5023 (talk) 19:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is silly. The article clearly states that she appeared in porn. What more is there to say that's relevant to a biography? The idea that anyone is more likely to know about her from her porn career than her acting career is laughable.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The Sasha Grey comparison is a very poor one; Sasha Grey has essentially been cast in one serious non-pornographic role and several bit parts. Although she may be interested in doing more main stream work, she has yet to achieve any real success as a serious actress. Kekilli has several serious speaking roles, many of which involve genuine acting. I don't think that this article is an appropriate or necessary home for a list of Kekilli's pornographic films. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.197.145 (talk) 08:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree that the article is clear that she was actually in porn. After mentioning the claims of her acting in pornography it goes on to mention that she called it a "smear campaign" and that the paper that brought it up was reprimanded by the industry watchdog for its coverage. Reading that I was left with the impression that the paper's allegations were in fact false.Demigord (talk) 19:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

No, the article was not clear at all that Kekilli did porn films. In fact, the article was clearly written in a way that deliberately tries to conceal this fact and this is against wikipedia policies. I could agree that the importance of such a list is arguable, but definitely his past as a porn actress need to be clearly stated. I've changed the article in order to fix it. Domingos (talk) 10:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC-2)

As I said on my talk page, your edit was not an improvement to the previous wording. The previous version was already perfectly clear that she had worked in porn, so I don't think your wording change made that point any clearer either. I reverted it.Cúchullain ^t/c 12:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that.  Sandstein  14:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow, the Though Police are out in force on this article.

Her adult past ABSOLUTELY deserves to be included in this article. Not even just a (truncated) filmography, but even its own section.

Why? Because it is not the role of Wikipedia to decide what a person is or is not best known for. Wikipedia's role is to write encyclopedic entries on the topic at hand, with as little bias or editorializing as is humanly possible.

Yes--she is NOW known as a more mainstream actress. And the writing of the section about this part of her career ought to reflect that these are more mainstream roles, as well as the accolades she's received for them.

But the simple fact of the matter here is that she DID work in adult films prior to entering the mainstream. And to reduce that part of her career (TWELVE films!) to little more than a single sentence is tantamount to morality censorship; and completely at odds with what Wikipedia is all about. DigiFluid (talk) 02:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken about that. Take a look at WP:UNDUE. Essentially, about most people these days, there is so much material that we need to be selective about what to include and what not, and at what length, so as to keep the article to a manageable length. People who read a Wikipedia biography want to know what is important about a person, and not each and every published fact about them, such as the color of their toenails. And the way we make this selection is by following the lead of reliable sources. So if 99% of what has been written in reliable published source about this person has been about their work as a mainstream actress, then that is what the focus of our article should also be on. Including a lengthy section about her porn work (if that could be reliably sourced, which is not clear) and a list of all her porn films would create the false impression that she is mainly notable for being a porn star, and that would diminish the usefulness of the article to readers. This has nothing to do with morality censorship - we do have long articles about the porn work of people who are notable for being porn stars - but rather it is about getting the article right, as WP:BLP in particular requires us to.  Sandstein  06:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you're completely stretching the definition of WP:UNDUE. It's about things which can be actively refuted by evidence, and not giving undue attention to things which cannot be cited as being factual.

In the case of Ms Kekilli, it is absolutely a part of her professional past and to ignore or marginalize it would be editorializing. Yes, she is absolutely recognized as a mainstream actress now. So the sections on her professional career ought to be written in a way to emphasise that--but NOT to the near-exclusion of her past.

I bet there's a lot of people who would like to marginalize their past, but we're not here to be their publicists. Wikipedia exists to provide an encyclopedic entry on a given topic. Whitewashing someone's past because they've moved on to bigger and better things is an affront to everything that Wikipedia is. DigiFluid (talk) 07:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

No. WP:NPOV specifically says "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." The point of an encyclopedia biography is not to list off every fact you possibly can about a person, it's to include the significant information, judging by its prominence in the reliable sources. Her career in porn is significant, but not enough for its own section in her biography. The current presentation is sufficient, and more or less reflects exactly what the sources say about it.Cúchullain ^t/c 13:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Who do you work for? The Salvation Army? Your argument is so moralistic it's actually insulting to Ms. Kekili, who is in no way ashamed of her porn movies, and of course the list of them appears in WP in every other language (namely in German), in Imdb and in every bio you may find on the web. But of course, everybody else except you is completely wrong about what WP should be, including everybody else working in WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.54.52.180 (talk) 16:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia a knowledge-base or agency bulletin? Besides, since when porn career is universally deemed dishonourable or shameful? The shame is on you dear editors! (Zencefil)

Pornographic past

Currently, the only mention of the subject's past history of pornographic films is

"Shortly after the release of Head-On, the German tabloid newspaper Bild-Zeitung revealed, in a sensationalist tone, that she had previously acted in pornographic films"...

This I find evasive and indirect. Wikipedia should not merely relay what others are saying, it should compile that information and present it as fact (obviously given that it can be verified etc). In this case the current phrasing means Wikipedia does not actually make the claim she has a pornographic past - it only reports that a source does, specifically and needlessly mentioning that source directly in the text.

Furthermore, the fact is served together with the language "in a sensationalist tone". This is highly problematic. I also note how the remainder of the paragraph is given over to language suggesting it's all false and a smear campaign.

Therefore I propose this is rewritten into terse, objective encyclopedic language, where Wikipedia simply states her pornographic past using a neutral-looking reference in the normal manner.

At the very least, the statement about her pornographic past should be separated from the statement about the Bild scandal. Then the question can be asked "is the actual revealing noteworthy?" (I personally vote no, it isn't). A single clean sentence summarizing her porn involvement serves Wikipedia much better while still avoiding undue emphasis.

Also, that the information is currently not presented in chronological order. The flow of the article gives off the impression she was new to acting in front of a camera when she was "noticed" by a casting director in 2002.

All in all, one solution would be to append this to the paragraph summarizing her pre-"Head On" life, like so:

After leaving school at age 16, she worked for two years for the local city government, then moved to Essen, where she worked various jobs, including acting in pornographic films using the stage name "Dilara".

...and then (optionally) deleting the entire paragraph on the scandal, or at the least, rewriting it thusly:

Shortly after the release of Head-On, the German tabloid newspaper Bild-Zeitung revealed her pornographic past, leading to a public scandal. Kekilli's parents broke off all contact. During her acceptance speech for the 2004 Bambi prize for best "shooting star" for her role she tearfully complained about the "dirty smear campaign" and "media rape" against her. The Bild-Zeitung was later reprimanded for the coverage by the Deutscher Presserat, the self-control institution of German publishers.

Comments? 213.112.128.96 (talk) 14:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that this aspect of her biography needs additional attention. Per WP:BLP, "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." This is particularly the case here, as she became notable in the first place (and continues to be notable) for her work as a serious actress, rather than for her pornography. That activity is incidental to her biography and became public only through the reporting of one tabloid. Also, the article is very brief and the porn issue already has a paragraph to itself; if it were any longer its weight in the article would be completely out of proportion to he weight of the text describing the work for which she is notable. On these grounds, it would violate WP:BLP to go into additional (undue) detail about this matter.

In view of the reprimand that Bild received for its reporting (see also [1]), and the description in the source ("In a no-holds-barred report, a headline in the tabloid screamed on Tuesday, "Why did the petite diva star in such hard-core pornos?""), I think it is reasonable to describe the coverage as sensationalist, although as far as I'm concerned that adjective isn't indispensable either.  Sandstein  14:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The fact that she was in porn films is not a "claim", it's a fact. Simply citing wikipedia's policies is not enough to win every arguement, Sandstein. Your declaration of a right to privacy is laughably irrelevant - she was paid to appear nude in film, the ultimate willing individual sacrifice of privacy in today's society. Your description of her as a "serious" actress and in particular your words about the story being "incidental to her biography" reveal serious bias on your part and are merely your personal opinions. Your attempts to conceal these facts and focus attention on her later career as an actress are blatant examples of POV pushing. You are not Sibel Kekilli's publicist; so stop abusing the system by removing legitimate material and hiding behind bad rhetoric. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.30.92 (talk) 04:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree with the others that the article in its actual form is biased by editing out almost everything about her pornographic past. Everybody reading about her the first time here, would never assume her to have been in adult production and see all this as a "smear campaign" against her...and this is simply telling a lie. There is more than enough source material to prove her appearance in those movies. I'm not talking about adding an extensive adult filmography but there should be an own section dealing with this part of the actresses life. And that has nothing to do with childish "OMG, let's make sure that everybody knows about her porn past" ambitions, it is just simply stating the truth...and that is what Wikipedia is supposed to do. The German article for example has an own section on her productions with Magma Films which is still a small part of the biography in comparison to the description of her career as a serious actress. Even if you (Sandstein in particular) love her recent acting - which, by the way, I do as well - that doesn't give you the right to alter a supposedly objective article to let her appear more socially acceptable. And since you seem to speak German as well, have a look at the German article and tell me where the section about her pornographic past is so "totally out of proportion". --Afghani84 (talk) 12:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE, what matters is not only whether something is true, but also whether it is appropriate to include it in an article that is supposed to provide a balanced, neutral biography. Generally, the amount of coverage any given aspect or viewpoint of a topic gets on Wikipedia is proportional to the coverage it gets in reliable sources. As far as I know, the only coverage of her pornographic activity was one or more articles in the BILD tabloid (which, for WP:BLP purposes, is hardly a reliable source), while the rest of the coverage she received is for her serious film work. Accordingly, even if details of her porn work are reliably sourceable, their inclusion here (in this very short article) would violate our rules about the treatment of biographies of living persons, because it would make that aspect of her career appear much more significant than it is.  Sandstein  15:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I see your point and it might be too much to add a paragraph right now as the article is relatively small. I will soon translate major parts from the German wiki and provide English references to those. Once the article grows, a paragraph can be added and there won't be any disambiguance about the whole topic anymore.--Afghani84 (talk) 01:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

BILD brought it up, but the topic of her short career in porn was subsequently reported on and discussed by practically the entire media in Germany, including TV shows and major magazines and newspapers like Der Spiegel, Frankfurter Allgemeine, Süddeutsche Zeitung, Die Welt and Die Zeit. Most of them focused on the way BILD covered the topic (and disapproved), but all the same they wrote about the subject. Some of those articles were in print only, and since we're talking about 2004, some articles have now disappeared from the web. You can still find quite a lot of them online, though, a selection: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. --Rosenzweig (talk) 18:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Is the fact she's a former pornographic actress who made the transition to mainstream acting not relevant to who she is? I would say its extremely relevant and that a one sentence blurb about it isn't giving it its due weight. She acted in 15 porn films, therefore this was a career for her. Why does the beginning paragraph mention every side job she did, but not her pornographic past? Also, the idea that only one German tabloid has reported on it is absurd. Every article I've read mentioning her in Game of Thrones has brought it upDruzero (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I will say that there does seem to be ample effort to suppress this information. Currently, the way it is worded makes it sound like a tabloid erroneously reported that she was a pornographic actress and then was later reprimanded for it. If this gained national media attention (or more) in Germany, then I would assume it should at least be clearly mentioned on her page. Seeing as the number of adult movies that she has acted in is still a significant portion of her overall film credits and that it was a well covered event and often mentioned in contemporary articles, the area needs some work. Our job as editors is not to sensationalize or editorialize any information--but purely to create factual and encyclopedic entries. DietFoodstamp (talk) 02:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree with the Wikipedia users here who complain about the ambiguity in the reference to her pornographic past. The way the article is written right now makes it look like the things said by Bild were all false and lies, in the sense that there was no pornographic past whatsoever and it's just a sensationalist move from the media.--190.191.50.114 (talk) 05:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure about your English reading comprehension abilities, but the article makes it quite clear that she had a pornographic past. There is no need to do more about it. The coverage is sufficient. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Childish personal attacks aside, the English reading skills of the above (and below) user(s) might be poor, fair or god-like, but the article has been written to imply what they infer. The wording has been cunningly chosen (take that, NPOV!!!) to whitewash the porn past of miss Kekilli, and make the claims look as much a defamation as possible without it (the article) being regarded as a straight lie. isilanes (talk|contribs) 11:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the article appears whitewashed. Reading this article did not at all prepare me for what I found when I put her name in a search engine. Cacophony (talk) 06:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Sandstein is POV pushing

This user's first edit on this article was the removal of information regarding Kekilli's history in porn - for the last two years all of his (numerous) edits on the page were to remove material related to this topic. This behavior is consistent with POV pushing and should be brought to the attention of other moderators. One individual should not have this level of control over an article. Sandstein is abusing his status as a wikipedia moderator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.30.92 (talk) 04:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Sandstein, right or wrong, is attempting to apply our BLP policy, and that is laudable, not an offense. When in danger of error, we err on the side of sparing the subject of the article. The matter isn't necessarily settled, but I suggest you be wary of making such charges against one of our most respected admins and (former?) member of the Arbitration Committee. Get back to discussing the issues, not other editors. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

No. User:Sandstein is trying to push his POV, and that is definitely not laudable. If he were interested in neutrality, he could have made edits in the opposite direction too, or removed as irrelevant other facts... has he? The "danger of error" is non-existant here, as the porn past of miss Kekilli is undeniable. The only effect of Sandstein's edits is to downsize the importance of Kekilli's porn past below its actual level, and that is not acceptable. Sandstein's neutrality here is quite obviously in doubt, and arguments of authority ("one of our most respected admins ...") have little to add. isilanes (talk|contribs) 11:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• If I may put in my 2 cents, the current version of the article (as of the date stamp of my comment) makes it appear as if the German magazine erred regarding her porn past, especially given that it's connected to the allegations of a "smear campaign" and also a reference to the magazine being disciplined. All that makes it seem as if the reports are false, which is clearly a factual error as it can be verified that she was in the industry (though I don't know what the article itself said, of course). Do with it as you will, but that's the impression given by the article as it currently stands. 70.72.223.215 (talk) 12:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I would like to point out three things:

1. Her porn past is relevant. To some extent. It should be clear that she used to do porn.
2. Her porn past is not terribly interesting. I don't mean 'good' or 'bad', but there's really nothing noteworthy about her porn past other than... she has one. If she had been a really famous porn star, that'd be interesting. But, as it is, any more details don't really help the reader understand the subject. A list of past titles is overkill (unless every one of those past titles were REALLY REALLY noteworthy).
3. Sandstein might be POV-pushing. He might not. Personally, I don't care (those things tend to get worked out one way or another). However, this page is for discussing changes to the article; not anyone's personal disputes with other editors. In other words, please keep that crap off the article talk pages? Take it up with relevant noticeboards, or user talk pages, but not here. 139.57.100.63 (talk) 00:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)