Jump to content

Talk:Sasha Grey

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mrdeleted (talk | contribs) at 19:11, 25 March 2016 (→‎sasha grey). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Semi?

"played a semi-fictionalized version of herself..." I am wondering how it is 'semi' fiction? I have not seen it, but fictionalized means it is based on some facts and some fiction already, it does not require word 'semi' in front.

sasha grey

According to her blog, she was on CBS. Can anyone confirm this?

A: Yes. She was interviewed on the TV show 'The Insider' which runs on CBS. It's been posted on YouTube.

A: Yes. She has a much more indepth and current interview on VBS.TV in the shot by Kern section. Unfortunately this site was deemed as spam for a yet to be declared reason. Should be noted that Sasha Grey's website links to this interview, and is the only link on her site besides her myspace blog, where she links to the same VBS.TV interview.

______________ Is she catholic or agnostic? (see her Myspace page)

A Brazilian magazine, EleEla, says that she was born in Fortaleza, Brazil. http://eleela.terra.com.br/aberto/423/artigo40652-1.htm?o=r (in Portuguese)

Pornographic Career

It appears she is no longer under management for her "mainstream affairs" with The Spread Group which is verified in two different sources, the management website http://www.thespreadgroup.com/ and her personal twitter page now states otherwise. CP30777 (talk)CP30777

-No,not Brazilian.- No. According to her own website (accessed 9.13.11) she was indeed born in California. ~ b

Sasha Hebrew?

Portugese Wikipedia says that Sasha have Jew ascendence.See pt:Sasha Grey .I'm interesting about it because could be possible since her mother is from Poland ascendence, and could be other distinctive aspect to put in her Biography. Some User can corroborate this infomation please? Vicond (talk) 04:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are those the same people who claims that she is Brazilian as well? Anyway, without a proper source it's a no-go. Nymf hideliho! 07:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Her Greek ancestry comes from her paternal grandfather (her paternal grandmother was not Greek). Her maternal grandfather was half Polish at the most. The rest of her ancestry is Anglo-Saxon. So no, not Jewish. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 23:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose she wouldn't be considered Jewish by Orthodox standards, but there are (or were) Polish Jews and even Greek Jews. --anon. 71.183.134.249 (talk) 23:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

strong supporter of gay rights

Are there any sources for that? I don't recall ever seeing her rally for same-sex marriage/gay rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.246.152.126 (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Former Porn Star? NPOV?

Most 'actors' on Wikipedia haven't acted in decades. They're still actors because they are depicted acting and are most known for their acting. I'd argue given all porn stars become former porn stars at some point that they are still indeed porn stars as long as their material is out there making them money and it is primarily what they are known for. Dita von Teese is a great example of buying your way to a clean slate, most people don't even know she starred in numerous hardcore porn films, and she will come up with all kinds of colorful self descriptives that avoid addressing the fact she was, first and foremost, a porn star.

Do we do an encyclopedia justice by white washing dirty little elements of peoples lives that they--personally--do not want to be a focal point, or do we represent the facts without emotive influence or bias? I personally think that this reflects an NPOV issue at it's core. I'm not an editor on this article, and thus ask it's current regulars to try and iron this out a bit and remember that first and foremost wiki is an encyclopedia, not a PR tool. BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 09:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although you don't state it explicitly, you imply a double standard, that the use of 'former' is somehow not used on the pages of mainstream actors, or more prevalent on the pages of porn actors. The following is from searching "site:wikipedia.org/wiki" on Google. You can go down the results and see from the titles and the sample text that these hits are clearly from the lede of these articles:
"former actor" = 537 results
"former pornographic actor" = 23 results
"former actress" = 809 results
"former pornographic actress" = 175 results
The results would be even more skewed against you by searching for the term 'retired.'
Other points:
"they are still indeed porn stars as long as their material is out there making them money..." Almost no pornographic actors make money on the films after they are produced. It's not that sort of business. It's not uncommon to see the bio of a porn actress say something like, "She did 500 films her first year in the business." The bookkeeping would crush them if they had to keep track of who was owed what. If the Hollywood studios were churning out this many films a day, they also would start paying people huge upfront, with no interests afterward.
"Dita von Teese is a great example of buying your way to a clean slate..." Her clean slate on WP not only mentions her porn background, but gives the names of the films so people can go see them for themselves.
"most people don't even know she starred in numerous hardcore porn films..." Most people don't know Harrison Ford was a carpenter. What's your point? Both facts are mentioned on their pages. Do you want the facts mentioned in the ledes? Or just von Teese's lede?
"and she will come up with all kinds of colorful self descriptives that avoid addressing the fact she was, first and foremost, a porn star." Ford gives interviews rarely, and when he does they're usually not about his life as a carpenter. But I guess to you that's what he was, first and foremost, and the implications is ALWAYS, and it's therefore some sort of terrible coverup that it's not mentioned more prominently on his page?
"Do we do an encyclopedia justice by white washing dirty little elements of peoples lives that they--personally--do not want to be a focal point..." If you came across this text on Harrison Ford's talk page, or on the page of anyone else who has changed careers, you would see how ridiculous you sound right now. You seem to think that having performed in pornography is a taint, that can never go away. Your reaction is similar to what most people would have if they came across a page where the subject was described as "a former murderer." Only, they would be justified in reacting that way. You are not.
"I personally think that this reflects an NPOV issue at it's core." The fault, dear BaSH PR0MPT, lies not in our wikis, but in ourselves. 173.58.37.123 (talk) 03:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 17 November 2012

271 titles Andcoser (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done I updated the total in the infobox, since that's what I think you meant. Begoon talk 01:09, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted edits about Sasha Grey interview by Andrea Diprè

I don't understand why my edits were reverted. Andrea Diprè is the most important italian art critic, so his interview can be considered a turn of Sasha's career toward figurative art. These information should be present in her biography. --95.247.206.254 (talk) 15:04, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The English in that edit was only marginally comprehensible, and as such added nothing useful to the article. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please list grammar errors contained in that edit, thanks. Anyway, if you find syntactic errors, you should correct them and not delete all. The informations about figurative art are relevant, such as the sections books, acting and music. --95.247.206.254 (talk) 07:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my job to fix garbled edits. I couldn't even make heads or tails of what point the edit was trying to make. Furthermore, there's nothing notable about the interview or the interviewer. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inspiration behind the name Sasha Grey

The current article states that Grey came from Oscar Wilde work The Portrait of Dorian Grey. However, in this video interview at the 18.45 mark (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYeCIKYQB1k) in answer to the question of where her name came from, she says Grey was inspired by the Kinsey scale of sexuality, sometimes referred to as the Grey Scale.

Would it worth referencing this or editing the article accordingly?

2A02:22F8:1046:1003:0:0:0:2 (talk) 10:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well... The Blackbook article that is the source for the Dorian Grey claim is now a dead link. It might be worth just adding that she also gave this explanation at a later date. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neu Sex gave Dorian Grey as the sole reason, though I have "heard" that the pseudonym was supposed to be a hybrid of Sascha Konietzko and Dorian Grey. -bleak_fire_ (talk) 06:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dubiously cited information under "Personal Life"

Under "personal life," the last paragraph (apparently very recently added, if you look under the history) is about her taking out a restraining order against her ex-husband and saying he forced her into porn. This is a very wild accusation that doesn't seem to fit with the rest of her history, and the only citation to it is a TMZ article. TMZ being not too trustworthy, I think this paragraph should be removed, pending further confirmation.

I've never contributed to Wikipedia before, so I'm not exactly sure what to do in this situation. What does everybody else think?

Jakenbacon (talk) 06:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TMZ was the original source of the Read Across America incident, if you remember. The article said that the court documents exist, and that Ian could not be reached for comment. TMZ would be up for some serious libel charges from both Sasha and Ian had this never happened, especially since it involves specific instances of physical violence ("On one occasion she told him she forgot to check one of her porn sex partner's STD test and he flew into a rage, hurling household objects at her.") While there is no way to prove the extent of Ian's influence, the article is legitimate and belongs in place. -bleak_fire_ (talk) 18:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I am not sure if you are familiar with domestic violence (my mother works in the field), but it isn't just about the violence, there is a whole psychological element of control and manipulation of the victim. For example, constantly checking browser history and telephone calls, preventing the victim from speaking to friends/family without permission, etc. -bleak_fire_ (talk) 18:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed it. TMZ by itself is not an appropriate source. See RSN archives. I looked for stronger sources to support the details but could not find any in English. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure this is a parody? This is very serious stuff and isn't funny... -bleak_fire_ (talk) 00:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I missed it. Where did MorbidThoughts say that TMZ was a parody? Dismas|(talk) 00:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone's saying this is goofy celebrity gossip. -bleak_fire_ (talk) 01:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Parody is not the same as goofy celebrity gossip. See parody. Dismas|(talk) 05:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guarantee TMZ would wind up in serious legal trouble if this was a fabrication. They are describing specific instances of physical abuse. Look how Sasha reacted to the stupid Snowden app - do you think Sasha and Ian would let this stay on TMZ's site this long without a retraction if it was a fake? -bleak_fire_ (talk) 01:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I'm a fan of TMZ, but I'd say that primarily as a gossip site and tv show that they wouldn't have existed for very long if they were in the habit of promoting false, unsubstantiated, and/or questionable stories. They are owned and operated by a lawyer for a reason, granted most of their "news" is salacious, titilating, etc. and that is part of what makes them popular. That said, if the material is contentious and can't be attributed to additional sources, then I say wait and see. If other RS emerge, then the content is fair game. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 03:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll stand back on this for now, but I still suspect cognitive dissonance going on in this thread. -bleak_fire_ (talk) 03:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the record Bleak, I'm agreeing with you. I'm just advocating patience. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes..I did an extensive search and only came up with TMZ or pages that linked to the TMZ article. So, agreed, it doesn't belong on the page at the moment. Metafis (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm..Now almost April 2015, and still the ONLY source for this is TMZ, the citations point to TMZ or sites that quoted TMZ...I can find NOTHING else about this anywhere. Time for the section to be removed?. 109.152.234.69 (talk) 00:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"I guarantee TMZ would wind up in serious legal trouble if this was a fabrication." I mean no offense at all, but your "guarantees" are meaningless when it comes to creating a credible encyclopedia article. Only one thing should matter - is the source credible? Also - there is no link to the TMZ source in this article. The link is to an article on "complex.com", which then links to TMZ. Why isn't the ORIGINAL source listed in the article? This is just sloppy work here.

"Not that I'm a fan of TMZ, but I'd say that primarily as a gossip site and tv show that they wouldn't have existed for very long if they were in the habit of promoting false, unsubstantiated, and/or questionable stories." My friend, ever heard of magazines like the National Enquirer, The Sun, Star, etc? These junk tabloids have been in business for decades, surviving MANY lawsuits, and they continue to publish BS that no one believes (and most decent people don't even care about). It's possible that TMZ gets away with publishing fabrications because most people just automatically assume it's BS, and celebrities don't have the time to be going after a magazine or website publishing BS (there is no shortage of them, afterall - it would be very time consuming) as they assume people don't believe it.

The TMZ article cites "court documents". Yet they don't show a photo or scan of any. Sometimes TMZ has posted scans of official court documents, and this gives those particular articles credibility. So in short, this particular Sasha Grey TMZ article has zero credibility, and linking to it does a real disservice to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.222.212 (talk) 02:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, somewhat. TMZ is not by itself a reliable source, and the Complex article is essentially a rehash of it. So unless/until someone comes up with a better source, it goes out. Tabercil (talk) 14:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possible contradiction in article

Under "Career" > "Advocacy" the following is stated "Grey has been an advocate for the adult industry and defended her choice to be a porn actress". Under "Personal life" the following is stated "...she was granted a restraining order against ex-boyfriend Cinnamon after it was alleged that he abused her for years and pressured her to enter the adult movie business". First citation claims her to have chosen to become part of the adult movie industry while the second citation claims that she was "pressured" into it. RobinEH (talk) 20:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sasha Grey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sasha_Grey&oldid=711924238"