Jump to content

Talk:List of actors in gay pornographic films/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Proposal to drop footnotes for unambiguous articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Stale

I propose that where a BLP article exists for actors with the title suffixed by "(pornographic actor)" or "(porn star)" such as Aaron James (pornographic actor), that a link to the complete article name is included but the convention for in-line citations be dropped as there is no rationale for BLP concerns. The fact that the person is a pornographic actor is already as explicit and unambiguous as possible if suffixed in this way and the fact that the article exists is sufficient demonstration of notability. Ash (talk) 10:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe that any footnotes should be required here. They make the page overly large and introduce sources that likely should not be there. In the analogous female list (List of female porn stars by decade) there are no footnotes. However, considering the source of the suggestion, this should not be taken to mean that red links are acceptable if they are disambiguated. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
(clarification on rationale) If we were to drop all citations for blue-linked entries then the list would fail to meet the requirements of stand-alone lists. The guidance even includes an example regarding the need for careful sourcing of LGBT people, hence my limited proposal to drop (or leave optional) citations where the article name has a suffix making their notability as a pornographic actor explicit. The thinking behind the SAL guidance is that any list should work as a self-contained article without expecting the reader to jump to other articles to confirm that a list entry meets the list criteria. Ash (talk) 16:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
If there are no objections by 8 March (7 days after being proposed) then I suggest that assuming SILENCE is reasonable and consensus is presumed unless someone raises it for fresh debate. Ash (talk) 11:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
A problem with the proposal is that not all pornographic actors appear in gay porn films, so there would still be some BLP concerns. Epbr123 (talk) 11:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
It may be a list classification issue (albeit a pretty unlikely one). Risking including a demonstrably notable actor for whom the suffix "(pornographic actor)" is appropriate on this list does not appear to imply any real BLP concern. Could you provide an example to illustrate as I'm finding hard to imagine a hypothetical case where this would be a possible BLP issue. Ash (talk) 11:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I imagine a fair amount of straight-porn actors would dislike being accused of performing in gay porn. Epbr123 (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps, are you really sure you want to make a fuss over this one? There seems no risk that an actor notable for being in "pornography" but not "gay pornography" (or bisexual pornography) would suffer any defamation by being mistakenly included on this list (an error that would probably be quickly corrected). Potential "dislike" does not sound like a real BLP issue or the reason that BLP exists. Sorry, your fine hypothetical argument appears, well, argumentative for the sake of it. Ash (talk) 11:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd say the BLP risk is even higher for straight-porn actors. An accusation that a straight-porn actor has appeared in gay porn would be more believable than the same accusation against an average person. Epbr123 (talk) 11:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
You did not seem to hear me. My point is that there is no risk of defamation in this case. This is not a BLP issue. An inclusion error on this list when a full article exists (explaining the correct history and career of a pornographic actor) is not an accusation. The only reason BLP may be relevant would be if it could be perceived as defamation. An actor notable for pornography is not at risk of defamation from being included in a list of actors with credits in gay pornography.
Do you honestly believe this is worth creating a RfC for to confirm consensus over this hypothetical point? I am prepared to create such a RfC but I must point out that by pressing this argument, you appear to be creating artificial issues in order to ensure consensus cannot be reached on this article for even trivial improvements. I find it disappointing that an Administrator of your experience would adopt such a disruptive tactic. Ash (talk) 12:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't really understand your point, but saying a porn actor has performed in gay porn when he hasn't can be damaging to his career and personal life. Epbr123 (talk) 16:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
This is an impasse as I am not being heard. I shall raise a RfC on the matter as apparently this is needed for any changes on how this list works. I had thought my proposal carefully worded to be non-controversial and trivial, particularly as Delicious carbuncle (who disagrees with me on so many other points) agrees with me on this one. Obviously you are prepared to block this change and so a fully robust consensus is needed. Ash (talk) 16:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lady Bunny

Should Lady Bunny be on this list? The article on her refers to her by the female pronoun and looking at the talk page it seems Lady Bunny has made it clear this is what she prefers. This obviously isn't a simple matter, for example if Lady Bunny is just a character or persona then it may be acceptable to mention the person behind the character if he won the award. However even if it is a character, as say with Dame Edna Everage, then the character is still female so if the character wins and award or acts then she's surely doing so as a female, even if Barry Humphries obviously is male. Was the award Lady Bunny won for a role played as Lady Bunny? I also notice in the article on her, it mentions she appeared in gay pornography early on, was this as Lady Bunny or someone else? has Lady Bunny ever expressed any opinions on whether she still considers herself male and whether she ever did? Nil Einne (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

She is a drag queen who is very much male and indeed appears in gay porn - and probably proud of it. -- Banjeboi 23:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I've searched and can't find any reliable source that says this performer did porn, much less that she's "proud of it". Can you provide a source? 38.109.88.196 (talk) 20:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Have you looked at the reference provided in this list? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I sure did! "Best Non-Sex Performance". I'm not sure that's the spirit in which this list is really meant. But thanks for "keeping an eye" on my edits. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 21:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
If you aren't sure about who is included in the list, you should read the overly long preamble. I trimmed it once but it came back somehow. I'll trim it again now so that it relates to the list material as per WP:MOSLIST. Thanks for the reminder. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC
From WP:MOSLIST: "Selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category (emphasis per MOSLIST) ...Lists may include people who are notable for a single event or activity...if they are of particular importance in the context of this event or activity. (emphasis mine)" This seems somewhat in conflict with the note in the lede that "This list includes male actors in gay pornographic films who may be notable for their gay pornography and those who may be notable for other reasons or both (emphasis mine)" ...especially as it applies to this performer's inclusion. Please advise.38.109.88.196 (talk) 19:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Again, I think you're missing the point. The person who plays Lady Bunny may be male. Is Lady Bunny male? I don't think this has a simple or easy answer. Whether she's proud of appearing in gay porn is also somewhat irrelevant since it was never an issue. Ultimately perhaps it doesn't matter and I don't have strong views either but I do think it's an interesting issue and as I've said not easily resolved. For example to go back to my earlier example, if Dame Edna Everage won an award for whatever, I don't think we'd include her on a list of male award winners. It would be different if Barry Humphries won the award obviously. When the persona is so pervasive, where the character ends and the person behind the character begins is never a simple issue. Nil Einne (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
For that matter, you're bringing up a whole series of issues: is a person's gender identity (for the purposes of Wiki) based on how they self identify, how their persona is perceived and reported upon in notable sources, or on whether or not they have a Y-Chromosome? It puts in jeopardy all articles of transgendered and trans-identifying persons. You might want to see Lypsinka...where it is John Epperson who is being commented upon, he is referred to as "he", while Lypsinka is referred to as "she"...both in the same article. And given Bunny's penchant for identifying primarily through her female-character/identity/persona/whatever, I would say "she" might be most appropriate. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 20:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

"Crazy James" from Big Brother

He ought to be on the list. He was in a gay porn, after all. Anybody else remember that? --24.20.129.18 (talk) 04:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

This was James Zinkland, see "US Big Brother Housemate's Gay Porn Past Revealed". Pink News. February 22, 2008. Retrieved 2010-02-19. As far as I can tell he does not have a WP biographical article. The quote from dirtyboyvideo is "If you've tuned into CBS's "Big Brother 9" this season then you're already familiar with "Crazy James". This sexy, tattooed mega-hottie was smoking up our screens long before his TV debut! He biked across the nation straight to our doors and straight into the asses and mouths of a few of the lucky boys in our porn stable! Here he is challenging Colin to try and get to the base of his massive cock. After watching this video you'll see for yourself that its more like Big Brother 10"!"
Based on these sources he may be notable enough for a celebritard type article but he is probably more of an enthusiastic amateur rather than a notable "porn star". Ash (talk) 11:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I think this is a good example of what I was talking about above. When an if we have an article on him and when and if it mentions him being a performer in gay porn films, then we can mention him here but until then he should stay out. I'm glad that we have agreement on that Nil Einne (talk) 18:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
No, we do not have agreement that a blue-link entry must exist for an entry to be made. If an actor is listed here with no link but with reliable sources in footnotes demonstrating they are a notable pornographic actor (Zinkland would fail this requirement), there is no particular reason not to list them. With such sources in footnotes an article may be created later but to make that a prerequisite is fairly nonsensical. The RfC above includes these arguments. Ash (talk) 19:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I do not think there is any such consensus here and that the only entries which are acceptable are those for which an article already exists. Addition of non-linked entries after all the noise here over red links would seem deliberately provocative. I will remove any non-linked entires that I notice being added to the list. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Please point out where the RFC conclusion states the consensus. I fail to see it. Your statement appears to be a threat. Ash (talk) 17:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
My statement is not a threat at all, merely a statement of intent. You were the one who claimed there was consensus for the inclusion of non-liked entries, so I don't know why you're asking me to justify my reading of the RfC. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I do not believe I have made any claim of consensus for non-linked entries on this list. Please supply a diff for where I made such a claim. To repeat, there is no consensus to exclude non-linked entries. Further, there is no consensus to exclude red-linked entries despite the fact that they have been blanket deleted from the article. Ash (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying, Ash. It appears that we now agree that there is no consensus for including non-linked articles in this list. Given all the discussion here and elsewhere about red links, I am at loss to understand why you would agitate to add a non-linked entry for a failed reality tv contestant who may have appeared in a single gay porn video (although there no on has offered a reliable source to confirm this). This seems like needless argument for no constructive purpose. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes you do misunderstand. A consensus is not needed to include non-linked entries if these are supported by citations to demonstrate notability. This is the default position for lists. You appear to be making assumptions about my viewpoint on Zinkland without reading my text above, you have claimed the exact opposite of my statement. Your characterization of "agitating" is unfair, unwelcome and untrue. Ash (talk) 23:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Ash, I had read your earlier statement but thought you had changed your mind based on your arguments to include non-linked entries. If you aren't arguing to include Zinkland here, why are we having this discussion here at all? Again, given the recent brouhaha over red links, it would be sensible to establish a definite consensus for including non-linked entries to avoid further problems. This is not a significatly different issue from red links, so why you would think that they are acceptable is really beyond my grasp. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Please see WP:MOSLIST#Lists_of_people: "Lists 'may include people who are notable for a single event or activity and therefore do not have their own article, if they are of particular importance in the context of this event or activity." Doesn't that apply to this performer? It was a single notable event with a particular importance in the context of the event. And even though he might not be a "porn star", that's not the name of the list. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 20:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I proposed this in the AfD, and my opinion is still the same. I think all red-link entries in this list should be removed not only for BLP concerns but also to have a more discriminatory list. When dealing with a matter as sensitive as this we have to take extreme caution when listing names and we must back up these names with more than a mention or an award.

For example, suppose my name is Joe Romero (sharing with a red-link entry on this list). I'm just an average guy with an average life. With what is written in this article, how could any acquaintance, job interviewer, etcetra not know that I am the Joe Romero who won "Best oral scene" at the Gay Erotic Video Awards? If my name was Steve Cruz (sharing with a blue-link entry) I would be in the clear because the Steve Cruz on this list has an article mentioning that he was born in 1972, is 5'5/145, and is working for Raging Stallion Studios. There's more than enough information given to avoid BLP problems from both the Steve Cruz we mention and the other Steve Cruz's in the world.

Entries without blue links are a focal point for controversy and are not appropriate per our BLP policy, and I propose that they are removed, preserving the notable blue-link entries. Afterwards, the list would be kept clean of red-links through constant editing. ThemFromSpace 09:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Does your statement mean that you would not have a problem with an entry if it was dis-ambiguous?—Ash (talk) 09:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure which redlinks are disambiguous. Can you give me an example of one? A link to a guys picture or background history would probably be ok, but so far I'm just seeing links to lists of award-winners. Having a name cited as an award winner without any other information about him is really contentious. ThemFromSpace 09:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
The example of Tony Capucci above is probably a good one. Using the googletest there does not appear to be any other notable Tony Capucci that would be confused with this porn star. In this case a link to the newspaper article about being cast in Cohen's film and a link to an index of porn film credits seems unambiguous. If there were some other Tony Capucci that were non-notable then in the Wikipedia sense there is no confusion as Wikipedia does not have articles for non-notable people. If you really wanted to ensure no future confusion you would link to Tony Capucci (porn star).
Before getting too bogged down, the point I'm making is that if there is a consensus to enforce the removal of red links from this list (as discussed before, a rule not enforced for all featured lists) then the rationale would not be purely on the basis of disambiguation (or even the absence of a WP article as this is not a confirmation of non-notability). As there are always exceptions to WP guidance, perhaps we need a formal wider RfC to get a credible current consensus on the issue of red-links specifically for this list?—Ash (talk) 10:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Your suggestion is both sensible and unrealistic. During an alleged 5 month clean-up between AfDs, it wasn't done. In the most recent clean-up prompted by the most recent AfD, it was discussed, agreed to, and still not done. Even if it were to be completed now, there is no reason to expect that any future red links will be added in the correct format. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Considering your earlier comment history, I'm unclear which suggestion you are responding to. I thought you were making a statement against the proposal of removing redlinks but you've said the exact opposite in the previous section and below.—Ash (talk) 09:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - thank you for following up from the AfD. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Would anybody object if I went ahead and removed these? Given the nature of the previous AfD I'm surprised this proposal hasn't recieved more attention. ThemFromSpace 01:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I still do as was spelled out previously. This is a BLP issue, we don't want want the wrong wikilinks re-added again as happens on a regular basis and we want a clear picture of the gaps in our coverage in this area. This is the _only_ list covering this area and is still being overhauled from six months ago. In that time we've gone from just a list of names to start to clarify why someone would be considered notable. We are not in a rush but meanwhile we should work to ensure that if someone wants to start an article it is at least at the right title and no longer points to someone else. Addressing the hyped fear that someone with an identical name would have an article written about them is still an easy issue to address - we simply disambiguate one or both article titles. We do this all the time and it's considered pretty common editing practice. As pointed out previously this article is at the intersection of two areas that remain in flux - how to best present lists in areas of culturally taboo areas and what should be the standards of notability for pornographic entertainers. These decisions should not be solely addressed on a localized list level but this list can evolve into demonstrating how a list in a taboo area can still be a good and encyclopedic article and serve our readers. -- Banjeboi 15:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Given the support for the removal of red links expressed by several editors in the most recent AfD and the paucity of significant objection here, as well as the lack of progress in cleaning up the article, I'm going to start removing red links. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

In what way is your unilateral statement a consensus? You could raise a wider RfC rather than assuming SILENCE applies due to a lack of response on this talk page.Ash (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I think common sense and WP:BOLD should be applied here. Reds add nothing to lists and seem distract from real information. raseaCtalk to me 21:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Are you arguing that BOLD means there is no need for a consensus? Ash (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I think an RfC is in order. Although that might be odd because this article is already under an RfC. ThemFromSpace 22:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't assuming that silence equals consensus, but my reading of the comments in the AfD is that it removal of red links was fairly widely supported even if those editors did not express their opinion here. We are unlikely to be able to address any of the sourcing and other issues so long as the page is so large and unwieldy. Ash, you have stated that you have no strong opinion about removal of red links, so your objections seem somewhat obstructionist at this point. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Delicious carbuncle, I do apologise for expressing an opinion that differs from yours. I did not understand that this constitutes being "obstructionist", I guess most other wikipedians automatically defer to your wisdom. Perhaps you could supply a diff for where I state that I "have no strong opinion about removal of red links", at the moment all I can see of my comments are requests for a consensus and two suggestions that an RfC might be appropriate. Perhaps you believe that a AfD discussion is a healthy substitute for an RfC? Ash (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
My apologies, I was confusing you with user:Hobit and have struck the remark. Please drop the sarcastic tone. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Understood, </sarcastic>. Ash (talk) 23:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Ash: yes. Themfromspace: why not go ahead and let the current RfC run its course and then if someone wants to start another arguing for the inclusion of vast, pointless lists then let them? raseaCtalk to me 22:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Cool, I guess that means that we can look forward to editors reverting each other BOLD-ly and then trying to reach a consensus when that fails. Ash (talk) 22:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support themfromspace's proposal.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Still oppose. Despite the unique and novel interpretation by a few editors the entries recently removed, and reverted actually meet Wikipedia's notability inclusion for pornographic performers. That they systematically target this content to remove content and delete articles then have the nerve to suggest that even a mention of these performers needs to be removed is ridiculous. This is the only list for performers in gay male pornography and removing red-linked entries compromises Wikipedia's coverage in this area. The deletion discussion was sadly over-inflated with non-concerns about a wikilink going to the wrong article - that was the point of the whole arm-flailing tour from one admin board to the next - and thus several other editors worked through each entry to ensure that wikilinks went to the correct article or were disambiguated so as to help ensure if someone used a redlink here to create an article it would already be disambiguated to distinguish from other biographies whether BLP or someone who had died. No, I'm afraid this fails the duck test as just editors trying to delete information because they don't like it. Do we really have to change the article title to state and also those who have won major porn awards or are otherwise notable by Wikipedia's guidelines in this area? I hope not. -- Banjeboi 11:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Benjiboi, you continually show yourself to be insensitive to the concerns about BLPs that are not only shared by most other editors, but articulated in policy. You have singlehandedly stonewalled any progress here despite numerous editors (including admins) stating that the red links should go. The previous AfDs and this thread at WP:AN should suffice if you're looking for examples. There's a very simple solution to your concern about - create stubs for any notable performers, including references (which are already in this article, so it should be quite easy). Perhaps your comrades at the "Article Rescue Squadron" would help you get this done? In the meantime, I will proceed with removing red links. Please act by creating the desired stubs and not simply reverting. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
      • DC - why are you against raising a specific RfC in order to have a clear consensus on this point of blanket deleting all red-links on this list rather than just assuming you must represent consensus? As far as I can see nobody has pointed to a prior specific consensus building discussion, perhaps this is a good time to start. Ash (talk) 14:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
        • Ah, I can see you've blanket deleted rather than discussing any further or trying an RfC. I guess you feel building consensus isn't that important here. Ash (talk) 14:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
          • Sorry, I didn't see your earlier comment - the article is so long that edits take quite a while to process. I have offered a simple solution for Benjiboi's concern and not for the first time. It is not clear to me why they (or you) do not simply start creating properly sourced stubs for any notable gay porn performers. As for consensus, I feel it has been amply established in the previous discussions I have already linked. I doubt any amount of discussion will change Benjiboi's opinions or ownership of this article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Delicious carbuncle, you have continually heightened all issues - whether relevant or not - to a BLP flailing and alarmist level while showing insensitivity to common sense and consensus of other editors. This is simply disruptive and unhelpful. The best alarmist case you had going was that a wikilink on this list might lead to a BLP of someone who is both alive and not a pornographic actor. Allegations that Wikipedia fielded complaints along these lines were made but despite numerous requests for any evidence or simply a rough estimate of how many of these complaints ever came in, no meaningful data was ever presented. Despite this a group of editors worked through every entry on this list to address this possible concern. To accidentally wikilink the wrong article sems liek aa borderline issue but remains something that is easily foixable by simply disambiguating the wikilink. Which was done. Then you spiraled into the absurd deleting (or proposing to delete) articles on subjects who were quickly shown to be notable. Nothing was shown to be a BLP issue there as reliable sources revealed the names of those performers not us and little if any of the information we had was evidenced as untrue - which is what BLP is about. As you have now shown this has much more to do with your interest in deletion rather than actually improving content please follow the policies regarding lists and consensus. Harassing myself and referring to those at the Article Rescue Squad as "my comrades" suggests you are simply following the tin hat crowd at Wikipedia Review again, if not leading. That site has been organizing all manner of harassment and nonsense and likely those editors who are enabling banned and blocked editors should all be shown the door as bullies are detrimental to building quality content. Your involvement on this article has been an exercise in drama over the past few months and this seems more evidence of you stirring up the next round of concern building a mountain out of a molehill when all concerned could actually be doing much more constructive work than trying to appease your skewed views that even notable subjects who should have an article must be removed.There is simply no reason except You Don't Like It. -- Banjeboi 15:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
        • Most of what you have written here is simply nonsense and unrelated to my actual words or actions so I won't be responding to it. If I am so strongly opposed to articles on gay porn performers, why am I suggesting that still more articles be created? Please stop edit-warring over these changes. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
          • You have taken actions here designed solely to provoke so please don't take others here as fools. You are the one removing sourced content against consensus. Please cease and desist. -- Banjeboi 16:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Should redlinked entries be removed?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

Should the redlink entries in this article be removed? The relevant background discussion can be found above and at the article's latest AfD. ThemFromSpace 16:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

A diff with the redlinks included may be seen here and a diff with the redlinks removed may be seen here. ThemFromSpace 03:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • No, though they may be renamed to be unique. The issue with complying with REDLINK is accidentally linking to someone with the same name when such an article is newly created. Using a suffix "(porn film actor)", or equivalent, will ensure unique future-proof disambiguation (e.g. John Smith (porn film actor)). REDLINK encourages retaining such links where new articles may be created; this list is an ideal way to get such stubs started. Ash (talk) 17:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • yes If this list can persist at all, this should at minimum be a list of notable performs in these pornos -- not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE listing of everyone that appeared in some flavor of porn or other. As a minimum, they should be the sorts of people notable enough (in the wp sense) to sustain an article.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
    • The list is not WP:INDISCRIMINATE and has been undergoing sourcing and clean-up when editors here haven't been working to improve individual articles that folks like you have also sent for deletion. In fact if an entry clearly meets Wikipedia's measure for inclusion it was still deleted only because an article hasn't been built yet. -- Banjeboi 07:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes per BLP issues, and because this shouldn't be an indiscriminate list of every gay-porn star. Epbr123 (talk) 20:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, as above. This is looking much better and I'll take a look and the broken cite mess in a sec. Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • ABSOLUTELY NOT anyone care to cite policy about this? There is none. Each one of those entries has a reference, there is no requirement that there must be an article for each red link. Absolutely none. The AFD closing admin mentioned nothing about red links, it was just a couple of dissatisfied editors who did, and, as the AFD states, the proportion to keep was 75% (2/3rds) If these complaining editors don't like current red link policy, change it elsewhere first. Ikip 01:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • No You can't remove links just because of appearance. And just because no one has made an article for those things, doesn't mean they aren't notable. Does every award winning porn star have their own article, even if considered notable? Does every porn star who has done a major role in multiple notable films, have their own article? There are references for information being erased as well. Dream Focus 02:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Maybe - it's not whether the link is red or not, it's whether it's established that the person is a gay male who is a porn star, using reliable sourcing. If that is established (with a satisfactory citation of a reliable source) the link can stay (subject only to other considerations of how likely it is that we will ever have an article on that person, which is driven by our best guess at notability) but if not, it's a BLP policy violation to include information that may well be considered deleterious or harmful, especially in a list. That's not subject to local consensus. ++Lar: t/c 02:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Lar, the list is of male performers in gay porn films, not gay male performers in porn films. The performers do not have to be gay to be in the list, just so long as they are male and appear in gay porn (and not necessarily in a sexual role). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Good point. That's a point of confusion for others and I shouldn't have made that mistake. My point still stands though... it's the same point I think you and others were making above, that any possibility of misidentification is a possibility of harm to a BLP victim. Even one such possibility is one too many. So if it's not a sourced redlink or if the link is one that might possibly be confusing as to who was referred to, it should be removed. ++Lar: t/c 05:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
        • Then we should be debating the references, not the red links. I agree with Lar, it is all about the reliable sources. I haven't examined the sources, because, I am really not that interested in this subject. I am afraid of a goate(sp?) type pic greeting me... Ikip 05:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Most of these are stage names used ... wait for it ... for use in appearing in gay pornographic films. -- Banjeboi 07:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • No, Absolutely ridiculous. Delicious carbuncle has again shown his disdain for this list by again trying to delete sourced content regardless of lack of consensus to do so. Those pushing for this novel interpretation to remove entries are quite confused about this list. It is for male actors who are confirmed to have acted in gay male pornographic films. Most are immediately evident as notable for winning major porn awards thus meeting WP:Pornbio. They have systematically targeted articles in this area with varying success to also delete those. This remains the only list for this subject area and lists do not have to contain only items that we already have articles for, in fact we welcome WP:Redlinks because they show us the gaps in Wikipedia's coverage in a specific area. Culturally being gay or a porn star or *gasp* a pornstar in gay pornography, is very much taboo. Headlines cover when a straight actor appears in gay porn or bottoms in such; actors traditionally use aliases to avoid this scrutiny. This list helps negate the need for dozens upon dozens of stubby articles until they are produced organically rather than en masse to appease the alarmist cries that any BLP issues exist here at all despite the offsite campaigning to spread misinformation. Five months ago or so there were no sources on this list and it was incomplete and didn't even contain all the entries in corresponding categories. When numerous entries were added they often pointed to the wrong article - instead of just disambiguating those links, which is routine and takes very little time - Delicious carbuncle set about forum shopping to 3 or 4 admin boards and started an AfD. Here again we have more disruption from someone with an axe to grind. It isn't helping this list and has proved to be a drama fest any time they inflict WP:BRD on the list and then others have to be called in to help them cooperate with other editors. There remains no reason to remove these entries beside I don't like it and will disrupt to make a point. -- Banjeboi 07:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Although we are not bound by precedent, (Wikipedia is all about trying different things out to see how well they work, and then being willing to change if they don't) it's instructive to examine other lists. Why is it that other lists have explicit disclaimers? For example, consider List of female poets which explicitly states "People on this list should have articles of their own, and should meet the Wikipedia notability guidelines for their poetry. Please place names on the list only if there is a real and existing article on the poet. Dead links in RED will be removed." ??? Seems to me that this "List of male performers in gay porn films " is an outlier. Why exactly is it not reasonable to conform to the way other lists are done? Now, to be sure not all lists are done that way, but what do the poet writers know that the porn writers don't? ++Lar: t/c 15:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Clearly many, most?, of those deleted entries meet our standards for inclusion by meeting either GNG or Pornbio or both. As this is the only list for this massive genre of porn this is the only place we have for this information which is clearly encyclopedic. If we only had one list for poets and entries clearly passed any reasonable test for notability I would, of course, feel the same about including them and would point out to any list-keeper that there is no good reason not to include entries simply because the individual articles have yet to be written. -- Banjeboi 19:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Comment in reply to Lar: there must be 10,000 times as many poets in the world as there are porn actors (and 1000 times as many notable poets as notable porn actors). I would think that one reason for a stricter policy at List of female poets is because that list would quickly grow to an unmanageable size if poets without articles were listed. (That would be true, I think, even if the redlinked ones were reliably sourced.) I have no strong opinion on the redlink question here—if push comes to shove, I say keep 'em if they're reliably sourced—but wanted to note what I saw as a lack of comparability. Rivertorch (talk) 03:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - As detailed below in RfC and obfuscation of earlier consensus, there were warnings against the inclusion of red links in hidden text at the start of every section of the article until User:Benjiboi unilaterally changed the text from "PLEASE DON’T WIKILINK NAMES UNLESS THERE IS AN ARTICLE ON THE PERSON AS A PERFORMER IN GAY PORN FILMS" to "Please DO NOT add names without a cite to a reliable source confirming they have been an actor in gay porn film. Unsourced items are likely to be contested and removed". Around the same time, Benjiboi also removed the editing instructions which had long been on this talk page to assist editors. At that time, the article had been just survived another AfD as "no consensus", with the closing statement being "Clean it up to valid bluelinks only, ansure BLP is not violated" (emphasis mine). Benjiboi proceeded almost singlehandedly to take the article from something resembling the current List of female pornographic actresses by decade to the red link packed, commercial porn site sourced mess it is today. All of these issues had come up and were addressed in the past. While it is possible that a new consensus may be arrived at here, it may be helpful to acknowledge that there was an existing consensus against red links and questionable sources up until a single editor took ownership of this article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Delicious carbuncle, it's hard to take you seriously when you clearly are inventing a past that never happened, alleging that I'm the source of all the problems, well, that's just giving me a lot of credit i guess. I did however completely overhaul the list to source and explain every entry and why it potentially should be a part of the list, that is different than WP:Ownership which is about harassing others from editing here which actually describes your work here - you've made this talkpage unpleasant for months. Despite this the list will continue to improve and the world will get to see a little bit more about the under-represented genre in an encyclopedic manner. You seem to be missing that this list, for years has been various folks vandalize and add non-sense and others attempt to clean it up. Meanwhile discussions on the inclusion has gone back and forth. Until I overhauled the entire thing this list had no sources and that was the main complain at the AfD prior to your AfD. It's a large list and among the issues it showed was that dozens of people who certainly met GNG and/or Pornbio didn't have articles or the articles were in a poor enough state - and little effort to verify their accuracy ensued - so they were deleted. I have been the main clean-upper here and efforts to continue doing so have been largely productive and peaceful except when you and your offsite "comrades" have disrupted with one non-sensical diatribe after the next. OMG a wikilink points to the wrong person!!! Sky .. is ... falling! Instead of just fixing it you create and stir drama - but to give credit you are good at it, your so good at it you did so at at least admin boards until myself and other editors actually did the work to clean it up. This parallels your efforts in the area altogether. a lot of arm-flailing and accusations and drama while others simply do the clean-up work like mature editors do. -- Banjeboi 23:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
      • The "imaginary past" that I have "invented" comes with diffs. Here is the diff of Benjiboi editing the hidden comments in the article to remove warnings about adding red links on 8 July 2009. Here is the diff of Benjiboi removing the editing instructions from the talk page on 13 July 2009. Actions speak louder than words. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
        • Cherry-picking regular editing in an overall effort to fully source an entire list while - whoops - ignoring the fact that I have actually added the majority of sourcing here; and while overlooking your own history of disrupting this article for months is incredibly insincere. You've only shown an interest in deleting this content despite your empty claim you want us to build dozens of articles y'know before their entry could be on the list. No, it works the other way around. Please find a subject area you apparently do approve so the community can be spared these exercises in dramatics and disruption. -- Banjeboi 21:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Obviously Including redlinks is a BLP nightmare. Hipocrite (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
    • "BLP Nightmare" seems to be a favorite quote yet no evidence of any BLP nightmares seems to exist, in fact Delicious carbuncle claimed this on several admin boards and the only example was of a *gasp* wikilink that went to the wrong article, which is an easily fixed issue by simply disambiguating the link. Which he failed to do in every case. Instead other editors acted maturely without the screeds, without the drama and hysteria and actually did the work. So instead of claiming any BLP issue please demonstrate exactly what BLP concern may exist and that it is not fixable by regular editing. Like simply disambiguating a redlink. -- Banjeboi 21:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Not if sourced and "notable" Problem with redlinks is that it implies no source. If the redlink is sourced, and evidence of "notability" is there, then it's a marker for future work. Removing the redlink stifles growth by hiding "notable" subjects which do not yet have articles. Dekkappai (talk) 21:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Clean it up to valid bluelinks only IMO there is no such thng as a notable redlink, experienced editors are here and truth is that if a redlink was really notable they would create the article, a sourced redlink is a not-notable person with one citation, imo if he is alive and he is not worthy of his own article but you have a citation you should still not add him if he doesn't warrant his own notability. Off2riorob (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
    Comment "If they were notable, they'd already have an article" is not a valid argument in niche subject areas. I work in Japanese cinema-- both mainstream and cult-- and I can tell you there are dozens, if not hundreds of un-begun articles on films and actors who have won the top awards in the country, or are on the lists of national critics as the Best of the 20th Century. This idea that Wikipedia is already finished with "the sum of human knowledge" is a dangerous one to the future of the project. Dekkappai (talk) 01:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Exclude redlinks not notable enough for an article. But at any rate if they are included you need sources and unambiguous link. IMDB is not a reliable source - it was being used here.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
"If they were notable, they'd already have an article" is not a valid argument for deletion, but hey, **** happens. Off2riorob (talk) 02:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Exclude redlinks of people/primary subjects. Hopefully we all agree that the list should only contain people who are notable for their role as male performers in gay porn films. And I agree with those that it's obviously true there are some notable people who belong on this list we don't have articles on. However excluding redlinks of people is often a good idea on a list about things which aren't inherently notable (if things on the list can be presumed to be notable whether for a seperate article or mention in a subarticle, e.g. list of Nobel prize winners, List of winners of an Oscar, list of plants of the genus Garcinia that's a different matter) and avoids unnecessary and ultimately unresovable arguments about whether the subject is notable (e.g. List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming is a good example of where this has helped). If the subject is notable, then people should prove that by creating an article. This is particularly wise when the subjects are living people. Note that I would consider including someone who isn't notable and lacks an article in this list a BLP violation. It's also worth remembering that things in mainspace are for the readers. Given the sheer number of redlinks in the list, the benefit for readers is unclear. Lists are not intended to be primarily an article creation guide, it may be acceptable to have something like that outside of mainspace but not in the main space. Also despite the claims of editors above that there was only ever one BLP violation, I count one redlinks without sources or any information on who they are or why they are notable under C at [1] with the articles on him deleted in December. This may not seem like much but it's the low hanging fruit and I probably missed some (I only briefly glanced thru the list). There's also an additional one under C which was deleted on the 30th January and one under K but the article was deleted on 2nd February; although given that I'm talking about a 2nd February revision of the page, the former is okay and the second one to be expected. There's also those sourced to IMDB as Scott mentioned. And please don't find better sources now and then try and argue these aren't BLP violations, if you think that reread BLP and stop editing BLP related articles until you understand policy better. In addition when glancing at a September version of this page for something else, I came across one example (Jon K....) who is sourced on 2nd February page (albeit without any real evidence for notability) but the article was deleted in December. Clearly it's inappropriate to include someone who has not survived deletion so even if it is sourced this one should go until and unless someone recreates an article. Note I came across this by accident, there are almost definitely more of this sort I would expect. Also while very briefly glancing thru the list, I noticed Gavin P...... a.k.a. D......, D...... J...... which concerned me because I'm aware there's a history of people putting alleged real names of performers in articles without strong enough sourcing to establish either that that's really the real name or that it's sufficient notable enough for the article and it seems like something that could be a problem here. Anyway, one of the sources doesn't work or link to the right place (which happens I guess) although appears to be linking to a primary source/listing of the movie; one appears to be linking to the right place which is a primary source/listing of the movie but doesn't seem to mention that either name is in the movie (either on the site or on the cover); the third one does at least mention the Gavin P...... name although not the D..... name. This wasn't quite as bad I feared, if either of those names are real, the Gavin P..... sounds more like it then the D..... one however the fact remains the a.k.a. bit seems unsourced, the person doesn't seem to be in one of the movies that we claim he's in (or if he's using a different name yet again but we have no source connecting the two). And the notability of this person is not particularly clear from the information presented or the sources. So yes, it's easy to see ways this list can lead to BLP violations and of course the more acceptable it becomes to add redlinks, the more likely people are to add such dodgily sourced names and information to this list i.e. the more likely we are to get BLP violations. And the more time people spend cleaning up information that perhaps should never have been here. Nil Einne (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
    • These are some well-thought out points however this again demands that to simply have an entry on the list we have to create the article first. That doesn't seem to follow reason when these are performers who are best know for exactly this work often employing stage names so the concept that their stage name used for performing in gay porn films is a a BLP problem is a bit hollow. The aka's point is a good one so simply ensuring that each is also sourced would quickly resolve that issue. My understanding is that IMDB is used for those wanting to see what films this person is credited with so we don't have to include such information here, especially when some performers have been in dozens of films we simply state they have been in dozens of films and leave it at that. IMDB can be used for such information as an additional source. Frankly this mountain out of a molehill happened in the middle of a lengthly clean-up but discussing what issues should be addressed makes sense. And as someone who has worked to clean-up lists that do get vandalized the opposite is usually true. Once a list is fully cleaned-up the vandalism usually eases as it's more clear what belongs/or doesn't and if/when someone vandalises even if it's endemic, it can be easily spotted and rolled back. -- Banjeboi 23:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Follow Existing Editing Instructions and turn redlinks to black (not remove information altogether!) See Talk:List_of_male_performers_in_gay_porn_films#RfC_and_obfuscation_of_earlier_consensus which includes: "Unless there is an article on the performer listed here, their name should not be wikilinked. There should never be redlinks in this article. Do not wikilink a name before writing an article on the performer. An article about a person with an identical name to one listed here will be linked here even though the subject of the other article is not a performer in gay porn films." --Stillwaterising (talk) 05:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reply to Banjeboi

Apologies but I forgot about this RFC but felt it was important to reply

That doesn't seem to follow reason when these are performers who are best know for exactly this work often employing stage names so the concept that their stage name used for performing in gay porn films is a a BLP problem is a bit hollow.

I don't really understand what you're saying but if someone is primarily known by their stage name, then we shouldn't be reporting their real name unless it's well sourced. There's no reason why an article can't be created on someone known only by their stage name, in fact we do it all the time. There's also no reason why it's any less important to create an article. If the person is notable, that can be determined via the article staying around, or surviving an AFD if necessary. As I mentioned, it avoids cluttering up this list with people who may not be notable and also provides it's a simple way to ensure notability when there is dispute rather then silly arguments here about whether or not someone is notable.

And just to emphasise what I said earlier, any link to a real life identity must be done with care. Also, just because the article is on a stage name doesn't mean it's immune from the normal rules of sourcing, BLP and notability. For example linking the stage name with other stage names needs to be done with care just as with linking to a real name. Saying someone appeared in movie X when they didn't should also not be done (which calls for strong sourcing). Indeed the fact that stage names can vary and could easily be accidentally or purposely reused particularly if not trademarked means we have to take care and ensure we have the right person when claiming they appeared in different movies. Similarly including a name on this list, even if it's a stage name and not a real name when the person is not notable is problematic and while it doesn't definitely create a BLP problem (although do note the plenty of people, even those who you may think would benefit from publicity are not necessarily happy about wikipedia having articles on them even if those articles are neutral or friendly, so it is important to ensure we obey notability criteria for reasons other then encylopaedic concern), should definitely be avoided. Note that just because someone uses a stage name, doesn't mean it's acceptable to publish misleading or just wrong information about them (as those familiar with BLPs will emphasise, many people are unhappy about wikipedia including incorrect information on them even if that information isn't negative), someone who relies on a stage name in fact often trades on it so on a professional level, harming the stage name can have a greater damage then their real name. Note also I've purposely avoided terms like defamation/libel because BLP goes well beyond that and a great deal of the BLP stuff we deal with are not defamation/libel (particularly in the US which has strong freedom of speech laws).

The aka's point is a good one so simply ensuring that each is also sourced would quickly resolve that issue.

Yes but I think it's an important point that it's not clear it's always been done until now. I'm not intending to cast recriminations, but since people were claiming there were few BLP problems I think it was an important point to bring up. And note also what I said that I consider unsourced information a BLP problem, even if it's true (not such a serious one perhaps, but still a BLP problem.

My understanding is that IMDB is used for those wanting to see what films this person is credited with so we don't have to include such information here, especially when some performers have been in dozens of films we simply state they have been in dozens of films and leave it at that. IMDB can be used for such information as an additional source.

Given the unreliability of IMDB, I question if it a good idea to use IMDB as the sole source for something, even filmographies. Note my point above about incorrect information and stage names. I also question if it's necessary to include such information in this list in any case. Perhaps it's useful in the article, but we're discussing the list here. Also the more general point and more important point I was making is that IMDB should not be used as a sole source for a person and it's my understanding it was.

And as someone who has worked to clean-up lists that do get vandalized the opposite is usually true. Once a list is fully cleaned-up the vandalism usually eases as it's more clear what belongs/or doesn't and if/when someone vandalises even if it's endemic, it can be easily spotted and rolled back.

I don't disagree with that. In fact that's one of the good reasons to remove redlinks that I think I mentioned.

Nil Einne (talk) 16:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

First off thank you for the thoughtful reply. The IMDB as a reference I still see as a meh issue. As a supporting source to show the many films someone has been in seems quite helpful. I would agree on a case-by-case basis that if the IMDB source was shown to contain errors we see as breaching the spirit of our BLP that removing it in those cases may make sense. For example the IMDB page claims a living person was arrested for drug use or some other crime but no reliable sources verify this. Generally they do a fair job and are willing to make corrections. I feel similar to the two archives of gay erotic as well. Ideally each entry would have its own article with a comprehensive filmography but on many/most of these articles this information is routinely compromised with varying excuses. I see no reason to make a blanket rule forbidding them and I think generally they are acceptable in film articles in this capacity. As for almost any listing regarding stage names we do a very simple test to ensure a new entry isn't a hoax, we search to see if that stage name appears in gay porn films. Often it's quite clear as they have a splash page on one or more of the porn company's websites. This is often where the AKA's come from as well. Despite repeatedly asking, no one has produced any numbers to support what extent of damage or BLP issue a ... wikilink to the wrong person may be causing. In a very few cases the person linked to was not obviously the same person so questions have been asked and wikilinks were disambiguated to ensure we directed to the correct article or showed a redlink. That's policy, actually, not that we delete information. Redlinks are there to show several thing including that an article doesn't yet exist. The "silly" arguments, IMHO, have only come from one editor who has been causing months of disruption here. Eliminating their disruption leaves a group of editors who have been willing to do the heavy lifting to see what and how people should be included or not. Without all this drama we may have come to similar decisions but their involvement has ensured a battleground environment making construction headway an uphill struggle. We could be well on to our way of having all the clean-up done and dealing with more salient issues but there you go. I agree with real life identity but in the gay porn world all we have to go on are the sources available. So if they are clear the real world name and AKA's then there you go. My main concern has been not listing the same person under different names and ensuring we have one listing per actor. This is done with sourcing and cross-references within the list. As for the last statement there about list clean-up I'll add that clean-up has little to do with removing redlinks, in fact a good clean-up of a list would show where the current list lacks article that should exist. I never intended that every entry should have an entry as I feel lists often help remove the need for stand-alone stubs. I was neither in a rush to create or remove those entries until a thoughtful discussion could address the many clean-up concerns. Instead all that was derailed by claims of "BLP nightmare", whatever that editors intentions they have greatly disrupted constructive editing here. Regardless, the nonsense is being seen for what it is and I have the utmost confidence that common sense will carry the day. -- Banjeboi 14:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Consensus?

I note that the RfC has expired. Should an uninvolved admin be flagged down to evaluate a consensus here, or should we work with the progress that this article has achieved in the past month? I wouldn't mind seeing the RfA be closed with an admin statement. ThemFromSpace 18:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose: Please see WP:MOSLIST#Lists_of_people: "Lists may include people who are notable for a single event or activity and therefore do not have their own article, if they are of particular importance in the context of this event or activity." Doesn't that mean red-linked performers should be OK to include here? 38.109.88.196 (talk) 19:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_actors_in_gay_pornographic_films/Archive_5&oldid=1148041344"