Talk:Sasha Grey/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2


Born in Brazil, not the U.S.

She was born in Fortaleza, CE. Moved to the U.S. when she was 8. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Represented by SpieglerGirls?

The link referencing Spiegler's site seems to be giving back a 404. The main page does not show Sasha as one of the pornstars anymore. It seems likely that there is no longer a relationship between the two. Since the link is dead, should the content referenced by it be removed? Jerkface03 (talk) 08:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Link changed to archive, and tense on relationship with Spiegler changed. Does anyone know who she's represented by now? Jerkface03 (talk) 10:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, she represents herself now and is in the process of forming a agency --Richj1209 (talk) 11:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Real name: Official warning

Per our policy Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles". Ms. Grey's real name is clearly contentious, given that she has gone to great lengths to keep it private. That means that we can't post it without it being very well sourced, meaning we need to cite a place where a reliable secondary source has widely published it already. A scan of a driver's license is not a secondary source, an anonymous web site is not a reliable source.

Do not add Ms. Grey's real name to this article without excellent sourcing. If you aren't sure, check with an experienced user or a Wikipedia:Administrator. Otherwise it will be removed, from the article and talk page. People continuing to add it despite being warned will be blocked. If unregistered users continue to add the name to the page, the page will be semi-protected, allowing only registered users to edit. I will repeat this caution on the talk pages of registered users who have posted it here already, and will block them if they repeat. Writing as a Wikipedia administrator, AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC).

Semi-protected. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
This information is not contentious. It is just a name, and Sasha's fears over revealing it are irrational. Everyone already knows what she looks like, so a name isn't going to change anything. Also, per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of names: "In all cases where the redaction of names is considered, editors should be willing to discuss the issue on the article's talk page." The discussion and consensus should have occurred before you removed verified fact, not after. I find your censorship despicable.--Majorofhonor 15:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Contentious means (
1.	tending to argument or strife; quarrelsome
2.	causing, involving, or characterized by argument or controversy
This clearly is contentious. That has nothing to do with whether or not her fears are rational. It's something she considers private. Until either she or a major source publishes it, we won't either. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography#Real names of performers. The policy is clear -- "should be removed immediately and without discussion" -- so we remove first, discuss after. Feel free to discuss the issue, but without writing the name itself, or you will be blocked; I'll let it go this time, don't repeat it. Being called despicable comes with the mop, no one said enforcing policies was an easy job. Or with just being a mouse. :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Blocked after repeated insertion, 24 hours. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

She has obviously admitted that is her real name. Otherwise, she wouldn't go through great lengths to get people to stop posting it. It seems like when she confirmed that was her real name, she later panicked not realizing at first that it's not about protecting her identity as much as it is her family's, friends, and loved ones. Many porn stars have revealed their real names, so I do NOT think revealing Sasha's real name will have any adverse affects on her family, friends, or loved ones. BUT, it's not for me, you, or anybody else to decide so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Her real name is being reported in many different places, including her fanlisting, and another wiki site. These sources along with her reaction should be enough of a convincing argument that it is in fact her real name. -March 3rd 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLP, specifically the section entitled "Presumption in favor of privacy" for an explanation of why her name has been removed and will continue to be removed from the article. Tabercil (talk) 19:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You shouldn't get to carried away with this 'real' name guys, INT is not her dump stat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Commons

AnonEMouse: can you also please look at my wikicommons page where someone without a username re-posted pictures after i deleted them for quality control. A wiki admin told me to post a talk page there, and then delete them...but alas only an isp shows up deleting them-not to mention in their "comment" using my name in a derogatory fashion, can this be removed? Can you help me with this please? Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madjabuds (talkcontribs) July 27, 2007

They're slightly different groups. I'm an admin only here on the English language Wikipedia, not on Commons, but I'll look. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Aha. The relevant discussion seems to be on Commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Vandalism in Sasha Grey. It looks like someone from commons may have sent or may be sending you an email through your official site soon to confirm that you're the real Sasha Grey, so, if you're you, I'd watch for that email and answer it. Personally I'm not sure about the "quality control" business; the photos aren't posed professional quality, but they're neither improper nor horrible. I'd think we could stand to delete them if we have better ones, and I'll post that on Commons Admin Noticeboard page, but it's really a Commons decision. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Her name

regardless if her name wasn't cited properly the first time.. confirmation from herself should allow the name to be used

this isnt a court of law.. its not like someone signed a search warrant wrong and now all the information is inadmissable

i could understand if someone was posting your phone number or address... but that is not the case here..

i know some of you guys will do anything for a porn star.. even if she is just online.. you need to get realistic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitas77 (talkcontribs) 02:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It's still not Wikipedia:Verifiable, which is the point. People have to be able to check the information in our articles against publically published sources, see that policy. Edit comments and talk page postings aren't published sources. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Yet more pointless bureaucracy.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 01:31, November 20, 2007

i have resolved the name controversy

by citing the controversy in trivia and stating that it was "alleged" her name is. that seems to be a compromise that might satisfy the vandals/grey herself —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitas77 (talkcontribs) 03:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not a controversy that exists in any verifiable sources, and mostly only exists right here. We can't write articles based on what happens here, we don't make news, we report it. Please don't do that again, it's highly controversial, been discussed here in great detail, if you don't agree, feel free to discuss, but don't just add it to the article. This is the sort of thing editors get blocked for. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I see you've been indefinitely blocked for a different conflict. It's normally rather hard to get into two different unrelated block-worthy disputes at the same time... --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Spanish Wikipedia

I would like to say that the article is in the Spanish Wikipedia too.Please,is possible that some people that have the corresponding permission to make changes in the Sasha Grey's article can create the corresponding link to the Spanish Wiki? Thank you. Vicond 16:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC) (talk)

Done. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


The image used in the article can be originally found here. It was taken by a friend of mine and asfaik he has never licensed the photo out. Vinh1313 (talk) 08:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The correct place to discuss this on the image page Image:SG01.jpg. That page says that User:Madjabuds (apparently Ms. Grey) permitted the image to be used using The Wikipedia OTRS service. Try asking someone with an OTRS account to help you out with the details. Best of luck, Skomorokh incite 09:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Skomorokh has gotten the gist of it across, though to be more specific I have interacted with Ms. Grey on various matters concerning her Wikipedia article. The picture in question was specifically chosen (and uploaded) by her to be used in this article. If there is some sort of licensing dispute you'll have to take it up with her. (Or, realistically, her agent) -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 12:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I've interacted with Sasha many times in person myself (and actually friends with her agent) but knowing or working with her is irrelevant. You can't presume that she owns the copyright simply because she is the subject of the photograph and uploaded it herself. The photographer owns the copyright. I also know the flickr user, Leyden, personally and the evidence that he is the copyright owner is in the entire set he photographed of the event, the 2007 AVN Expo. Not just of Sasha Grey. I was there with him at the event when he photographed her and I took a similar shot of her myself. I consider the copyright violation blatant without an explicit license (a link or whatever) from Leyden himself. The presumption should be that wikipedia does not use disputed copyrighted material in its articles. This is why I am removing the image from her article. I have notified Leyden through email of this problem. Vinh1313 (talk) 15:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I received confirmation from Leyden that he owns the copyright and that he did not license it out to anyone.Vinh1313 (talk) 01:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Photo deleted. Videmus Omnia Talk 05:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sacramento News & Review article

I've been in touch via email with Sasha Grey herself about the article, trying to get clarifications about it. She says there "a ton of issues" with it and "my manager is contacting the editor to get a retraction." In the interim, she was kind enough to state what is (and is not) accurate about what I took from it:

  1. Gary, Indiana: "i was NOT born in gary... nor have i ever lived there." Clear enough
  2. March 15 for her birthdate. Wrong - though that's my mistake as the wording in the original article is ambiguous enough on that topic.
  3. North Highlands high school. She did attend it, but was later home schooled.
  4. Attended Sacramento City College at the same time that she was working at the steakhouse. Confirmed.

So I have adjusted the article to reflect that information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabercil (talkcontribs) 13:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


According to chickipedia Ms. Grey's measurements are as follows: chest = 34" ,Waist= 26" ,Hips = 33". which source is to be considered "authoritative" in this regard? Sochwa (talk) 23:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Awkward sentence

"She was also featured in the music video for the song "Birthday Girl", by the Roots. The song of this video belongs to the Rising Down album." Very awkward wording. Perhaps "She was also featured in the music video for the Roots song "Birthday Girl", from the Rising Down album." instead. (talk) 06:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Like the Nike motto... Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Login. Suggestion for those with current privileges. (talk) 14:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Didn't notice that the page was still protected. Sorry. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


Can someone please explain exactly why her name can't be posted? 02:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Because we need reliable sources for all the information we post, but especially for controversial information about living persons. Since she doesn't want her real name posted, it's controversial information. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is the relevant policy. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
So, let me see if I understand this. That information need a reliable source -other- than her, even though she has confirmed it is her real name? 19:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah, but the original posting of the information did not have a reliable source so it shouldn't have been present in the first place. Since the information came to us via unclean hands, we can't use what came after that. We need a fresh reliable source for the name. Tabercil 23:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Unclean hands? Annoying username (talk) 22:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Changed link

The Sasha Grey Dawn of Porn Star link has changed. The new correct link is: (talk) 17:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It's updated now. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't become brave with me beautiful young lady

Sorry.I am not an user but,I have a very small question. Please don't become brave with me beautiful young lady. Is it possible to be a catholic person and porn star at the same time?

Covpnt.Friday, September 07, 20071:03 AM —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Debatable. Jenna Jameson and her ex-husband Jay Grdina considered themselves Catholic to varying degrees. But then Ted Kennedy is also famous for trying to be a Catholic and an abortion rights supporter. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Not to mention, he and his first wife divorced. --anon. (talk) 17:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Of course. A better question is: is it possible for a porn star to be a *good* Catholic? --Krsont 22:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
in fact, the catholic church rules is based on something called the vulgate - it's the opinions of the members of the church that are not based on the scriptures. And on this particular question, some catholics will say yes, most will say no (the main part of the clergy will say no). Can't be more precise than that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I suppost that the catholic religion in particular have the obligation to preserv the most complete integrity of the Chirst Church because is the first.It´s not a game.This is the reason what I don't underestand.How a porn start can accept this denomination in particular, with It's very strictic rules? I'm not very sure that Sasha Grey can answer this question.I think that she don´t have to do this necesarily. Vicond (talk)

Please learn how to spell

I'll take it into account.Vicond (talk) 19:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Grey's Height

{{editsemiprotected}} Grey's height is 5'6" [1], not 5'7" as currently shown.Nabulzi (talk) 14:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done, it got changed by an editor who made several uncited height changes a few months ago. Corrected now, thanks. ~ mazca t | c 16:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Am I the only person who finds it majorly disconcerting that a person puts up Sasha's driver's license as proof? Tabercil (talk) 08:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I found that odd. If you look though, it's hosted on a porn site of some sort - I assume Nabulzi is in some way connected to Sasha Grey or someone she's worked for. ~ mazca t | c 09:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
License is viewable by the public, and has been for awhile (it has not been uploaded simply for Wikipedia corrections), as part of the gallery on Ron Harris' photography site. Nabulzi —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC).

Grey stars in Steven Soderbergh film

This should be included in the article. Original news was released at AVN Oct 14 & 15 2008 by David Sullivan: and (incl. video)… see also her newsdesk at the IMDb: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


This is the second time within a month and a half that users have removed VALID citations-please carefully read the links to articles, videos, etc. before removing citations. Thank you! Madjabuds (talk) 04:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Madjabuds

Reference to existentialism

Reference to existentialism is unsupported and should be removed. The link currently ([9] listed as reference contains nothing on the subject (talk) 22:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like nobody has any data to back this up. The reference will be removed (talk) 00:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

"Grey has expressed a strong interest in existentialism" She does speak about existentialism in the video linked, but she effectively had not shown any strong interest in that particular philosophical trend. Chenging the start of this sentence into something like "G has expressed an interest in philosophy" might suffice. Can't do it myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

"Reference to existentialism is unsupported and should be removed."

If you look at the link that I provided and watch the first part of the clip, she refers to this very Wiki page and mentions the exact quote that is cited here, which I fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy1890 (talkcontribs) 01:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

WUnless she explains her existential beliefs in a public forum, she is merely a person who claims to be an exitentialist. This is trivial and should not be included in the article; it seems self-serving of her to be so roundabout. Every time I neutrally qualify the existentialism reference with a note that she has yet to explain what her interest means (beyond sounding deep and intellectual), someone edits it out moments later. She needs to say "I hold XYZ views about reality, life, etc., and these are existentialist views, and therefore I am an existentialist." You would demand this of a philosopher or novelist, so why does a porn star get a pass? This patronizes her. (talk) 03:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It may be notable if she expands a bit on the idea, as connecting pornography and existentialism is possibly notable. if its just a passing comment, its probably not worth listing here. but if she does say it numerous times without elaboration, or calls herself "the existential porn star", we cant editorialize here and point out that she hasnt explained herself, as if she should have. she wouldnt have to: no one has to explain themselves. perhaps, (if there is a quote in print on this(, we could say "Grey has stated she is an existentialist on numerous occasions, without further comment". to me that would be less pov. and existentialism isnt a certified degree or a club with requirements. really, many people have claimed existential connections, there is no board certifying it. it does add color, and of course she can be suspected of being pompous, vacuous, a dilettante, self promoting, etc. but thats all editorializing. now, if the reviewers are calling her this, repeatedly, then its fair game. and she did make into a soderbergh film, who is compared to godard in the review referenced. hell, if she didnt say she was an existentialist, someone could accuse her of being a crypto-existentialist. you cant win for losing. (see Life of Brian, his stating he is not the messiah, for pseudohistorical analogy.)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but there will be plenty of people who write things in blogs, the news, etc., saying "this person is a faux existentialist." I hope that gets a mention as well, if it were to happen. As long as we are at it, what is the standard for these entries? They are not resumes, nor self-promotion platforms, so a person should not simply proclaim something so many times that, if they are notable for something else, that proclamation warrants unqualified inclusion in the entry. If she claims she is an existentialist, but it is mere proclamation, and there is no body of existentialist philosophy in her work, then we have a duty to cite this omission following a statement of her self-identification about existentialism. If this was an entry on Philip Roth, we would want to point to themes in his books that back up his proclamations about his personal philosophy, and the only reason why Godard is called an existentialist in his own entry here is because he has done the work of explaining and showing why he is one. The porn actress should be held to the same standard. Madonna, for example, can be said here to believe in that wacky Jewish offshoot because she drinks their water, goes to their camps and follows their tenets. The bottom line is that if we are to take Wikipedia seriously, is cannot simply be in the service of allowing the people it contains entries about to craft and stylize their images as they see fit. You can give an actress a mic, and allow her to say she's an existentialist a million times, but if that's all she says, we have no good reason to think she's an existentialist, and this lack of evidence should be noted in the entry on her. (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we should just cut it; she seems to have distanced herself from the label in the "Shot By Kern" interview. Grey is pretty well-read, and that's alluded to in the lead with Scott's quote about her "intellectual seriousness." Aryder779 (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Sasha's real name

Some of the uncertainties about Sashas real name is removed since her old theater and acting teacher confirmed it on his blog in a discussion with someone who mentioned it there. Is this strong evidence enough to insert it in Wikipedia again?

(link removed)

"(and, though your opinion is welcome, for you to blatantly expose her real name -- be it common knowledge to some or not -- is a ...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Blogs are not reliable sources. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 09:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

So is IMDB really not a "reliable, third-party published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" or has someone got a personal wikiarmy keeping sourced info off wikipedia. ;) (talk) 12:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Not really, no. See [[2]] for one discussion on the topic. Tabercil (talk) 16:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Sasha Grey's real name is reported here (towards bottom of page), by the Boston Globe. So finally it's time to include it in her article right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atropine1 (talkcontribs) 04:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

For whatever reason, I don't see the name there, Atropine. Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Its certain its <redacted>. Yet why does wikipedia insist on keeping it anonymouse? Dont dare to question this link, penthouse has been around since 1965! After reading the below sections, one must conclude that this Wikipedia entry is indeed more a fanpage. Spoogeflinger99 is so right!!! So what will the "wikimasters" decide. Play ball or cover it up? Claire. (talk) 11:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Take a hard look at the site. It's not Penthouse, it's a third party. See the copyright listing at the bottom? It says "©" and as such is not a reliable source. Tabercil (talk) 14:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
The National Enquirer has been around since 1926. But now someone (perhaps you, Claire?) has found as a source. Wank Hilliams (talk) 13:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

case closed! Clairity (talk) 07:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Engaged to marry

Fleshbot (NSFW, obviously) reports that she is now engaged. --anon. (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there another source for this? I wouldn't rely on Fleshbot for facts since this post incorrectly says Stoya is a native of Philadelphia.
Also, this article currently states, "After a year, reporters announced in January 2009, Sasha's engagement to her photographer Ian Cinnamon," but the cited Fleshbot post says nothing about how long they've been engaged or dating.
EDITED TO ADD: Oh, I see now that Sasha Grey herself edited in the part about a year (and more), so that verifies the information, but it's not sufficient for Wikipedia (right?).Wank Hilliams (talk) 15:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The engagement has been changed because this is not the first time I have talked about my engagement. See interview from 2007: Madjabuds (talk) 04:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)Madjabuds

This is a pedia?

I found this entry because I am a fan. That said, at least 80 percent of this page needs to simply go away. Sasha Grey is not Einstein, nor even Jenna Jameson -- yet. She has an enyclopedia entry because she is a known porn star and has done a bit of mainstream crossover work. Her self-proclaimed dabbling in intellectual and philosophical pursuits are not worthy of this entry and most of her work and her personal "interests" are referenced by stories in publications where the facts are referenced to her own quotes. I am a writer, journalist and editor and would clean this up by purging it to about two paragraphs, including the use of her real name, which in spite of discussion to the contrary, is absolutely well documented enough to publish here. (Readers are two clicks away from that name through the IMDB link anyway.) Undoubtedly however, making any changes to this page will bring down the wrath and subsequent reverting of hardcore fans who wouldn't know criteria for an encyclopedia entry if it bit them. Please, someone with a brain back me up on this and let's make this page sensible and Wikipedia something worthy of its number of visits. Spoogeflinger99 (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Spoogeflinger99. Even as a fan, it is clear to me that the majority of information has been tailored to allow Grey to self-promote. Great lengths have been reached to ensure her legal name anonymity (which I do not object to), but no lengths have been taken to keep this Wikipedia entry objective. The use of quoting is very relaxed, and refer to just a few words here and there which Grey has given in interviews. I believe Grey needs to have less input for her own page, this is not her personal website. I say this in the least offensive way possible, and am glad someone has brought it up. Nabulzi (talk) 06:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe Grey has had much of a hand in writing this entry. Could you be more specific about where you think the article fails in neutrality or which reliably sourced relevant material is omitted? The vast majority of the content of the article is reliably sourced and relevant to the topic, so it is extremely unlikely to be cut, but the content might be rephrased (given neutrality/promotion issues) or expanded (to include more negative neutral content) if the sources allow. Regards, Skomorokh 22:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Skomorokh, please take a moment to look at contributions made by Madjabuds (who is Sasha Grey). You will see that the majority of this Wikipedia entry has been edited by her. The issue with sources, is that they are linked to interviews in which the quote is barely relevant; not to mention many subjective comments which are unsourced. I have noticed that Jrbot22 has already mentioned to you that the restructuring and restoration of Grey's page is unneccessary, as the same concerns raised initially still apply. The text in this entry does not become more or less objective once you have copied and pasted Grey's words, and tweaked them ever so slightly. Nabulzi (talk) 23:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I am familiar with the Madjabuds account. I am not sure what your claim that "the majority of this Wikipedia entry has been edited by her" means - if you mean she has made the majority of the edits, or is the primary contributor, then you are in error. If you have an issue with a particular source, the way to address it is to tag it with {{unreliable}} and explain why the source does not meet WP:RS on the talkpage - not to blanket wipe it out. Likewise, If there are statements you feel are unsourced or non-objective, please let the rest of us know which ones, using {{cn}} and {{npov-inline}} tags for example. You cannot expect to make vague denunciations and have the article wiped. Respectfully, Skomorokh 23:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
As a fan, I pay visits to Sasha's Wikipedia page quite often and noticed that it expanded significantly at one point after her own edits. She has not contributed the most times percentage wise, but all other edits are very minor (ie. reverting good faith edits; reverting vandalism). I have gone through and tagged what I believe need references. What I was attempting to point out earlier is that it could be beneficial to allow this page to be contributed by others more, rather than Grey herself, as things here and there make it non-objective. A number of her own descriptions have been deleted (writer; transgressional artist?), and I think that says something. Like I said before, I'm trying to say this in a non offensive manner that Sasha needs to take a step back from inserting her poorly sourced information about herself. Yes, she knows herself better than anyone else, but this is not the place to write what she fancies herself to be.Nabulzi (talk) 05:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion in this entry of philosophical leanings, so-called experimental films, being a writer, etc., are not pertinent to the subject being a porn star, which is why she has an entry. These unverified and inflated claims (and there are many) are not encyclopedic in nature, nor are they verified by anyone but herself in various interviews. Almost all of the references in this entry go back to the subject's own quotes. Because she said it, does not make it fact. Finally, most of the copy in this entry falls under the heading of what is called in journalism, "who cares." Meaning that the subject is a porn star and that no one is interested in why she picked her stage name or what her views on existentialism are. (As an example: Barack Obama is a high-profile subject and deserving of a large entry. Although the choice of his children's dog has become interesting fodder in the press, it would not rate an encyclopedia entry.) Most of the Grey entry is overly-detailed and out of proportion in relation to the subject's importance. Seriously, this is the shoddiest Wikipedia entry I have ever seen. I believe my edits are spot on and that anything that was cut is justifiable. All topics that are easily verifiable, of interest to a general readership, and demonstrate some crossover to mainstream known media were left alone. Since I am powerless to revert without being blocked, I ask in good faith, that you, likewise in good faith, consider my edits and consider the tremendous amount of non-encyclopedia worthy material in this entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrbot22 (talkcontribs) 23:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles collect the known verifiable information about their topics. Your not liking some information is not grounds for removing it; as a reference work, Wikipedia does not arbitrate what is "interesting" - that is the job of the newspapers, magazines, television shows and so on. Nor is the length of the article something Wikipedia concerns itself with, within limits. If you do not think a specific reference is sufficiently reliable to support the claim for which it is cited, by all means let us know and we can discuss the matter. If you feel that Grey's pornographic career is underrepresented in the article, then by all means proffer some reliable sources that discuss it in greater detail, and we can expand on that point. Regards, Skomorokh 23:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with whether I like certain material. Most of this material is indeed unverifiable. So let me get this straight. Because an entry grows exponentially over a couple of years with totally unreliable, sometimes downright silly material, editing it way back to verifiable material is considered improper or even vandalism? To tag every topic that is wrong with this subject individually and then wait for arbitration would take years. Common sense should sometimes rule. Submitted in good faith, Jrbot22 18:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

No need for years; if the objectors would identify the questionable material, the handful of us here can debate it out and have the matter settled in the next few days. To say that the article is all unverifiable/promotional/trivial would not get us anywhere; we need some specifics. For example, while the Modelling section seems well-referenced and uncontroversial to me, I am not sure about how much of the Early life section is accurate or verifiable. In order to work out what ought to be included or not, we need to know what is in dispute and why - meet me halfway, eh? Skomorokh 01:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Sasha Grey is a pseudo everything & not- a notable person- & I agree with the above parties that she does not belong on Wikipedia, mostly because of the way she presents herself.. Someone at least needs to include her filmography in order to be a little realistic & support the above factual statements, a filmography which used to be up.

Here it is, Please put it on her page if it must be a Wiki ( destroying Wiki )

If we can verify this information to a reliable source, it certainly ought to be included, but probably in a separate Filmography of Sasha Grey article rather than here for space reasons. Regards, Skomorokh 16:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
There is no need to start a new page or add her filmography to her entry as there is already a link to IAFD providing a comprehensive record of her work. Now if we could just clean this page of all non-encyclopedic material. Submitted in good faith, Spoogeflinger99 02:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I have added citations in this article (some of which were valid but removed). I merged the Penthouse info to adult career, and James Jean/Choe to modelling, and renamed Beginnings in pornography to Adult Career as it wouldn't have left much room for future information in any of the other sections.

I also changed " where she held a 3.8 grade average in her junior year" from "in her junior year" as this is an article that is full of misquotes and subtext from the author, again not fact. I have discussed this matter with moderators here when information from this article was originally submitted. Mods feel free to contact me regarding this matter if needed.

As mentioned above in the "engaged to marry" I changed the "engagement date" as I have spoken about the engagement prior to the article see interview:

As far as the awards mentioned within the article being redundant, these are unique facts (eg: youngest man to win a superbowl, youngest man to be president).

Opinions are welcome in this discussion, as are tags to "unverifiable information" within the article.Madjabuds (talk) 04:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)Madjabuds

Re: "A Star is Porn" article - if the article is full of misquotes and subtext from the author (regarding Gary, Indiana and GPA), consideration should be put into taking it down. Again, with the writer, photographer, performance/transgressive artist claims. It's ridiculous how poorly moderated this article is despite all the discussion. Look, Sasha is welcome to fancy herself as such, but this is for encyclopedic, unbiased information. Nabulzi (talk) 07:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedic, unbiased information was in this article, which Nabulzi deleted in a biased manner. Nabulzi continues to vandalize this article and remove facts (such as place of birth, etc ) that have already been discusses with moderators, just because an article is old doesn't mean it can not be referenced. Moderators have already confirmed the facts and misquotes in this article.

Moderators: How will this article continue to be protected when someone who has repeatedly vandalized it allowed to continue to remove valid facts and their respective citations? Madjabuds (talk) 19:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)Madjabuds

What I'm trying to put across is that references to articles which have numerous factual mistakes are not good for citing. You have established you are from Sacramento, CA, and I'm sure such a fact can be backed up with a quick search on the Internet. So, isn't it much more reliable and easier to link to an interview which can be trusted? It seems ridiculous to keep that interview going when there are so many other avenues for fact out there. Regarding vandalism, I enjoy hearing about your other interests, really. But this Wikipedia page is not a place for you to put what you like. If similar information were placed on your website, MySpace, etc. I would (and others shown above) would not have concerns with that, as those pages do not request encyclopedic information. They are also pages about you, by you. Wikipedia is about you, but not neccessarily by you. It's a shame the steps to clean this page up have been taken as vandalism, but please take a step back and see where I'm coming from. There were words, sentences, paragraphs which were either unsourced or linked to something which made to mention of what you wrote. I understand you're trying to create and have more control over your public image, but as I said, that's more suitable for your own website. Nabulzi (talk) 22:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

A majority of interviews I've ever done have had some kind of misquote, ornon-factual information; that's entertainment. But, the particular article you are referencing has been brought into question by moderators over one year ago. They directly contacted me and asked what was true and what wasn't.

Furthermore, how are you supposed to get factual information from a person without speaking directly with them? That's half of all articles.

Regarding some of the interests that you have issues with; I did not put those in the article, other wiki users did.

Some of the citations that you removed were valid sources of information that didn't have direct quotes from me. If we are applying your method of what is fact and what isn't, there was no need for the facts and their respective citations to be removed.

The issue at hand here, appears to be that you don't feel certain information is of encyclopedic merit and others do.

Wikipedia's definition of the word encyclopedia: An encyclopedia (or encyclopaedia) is a comprehensive written compendium that holds information from either all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge. Encyclopedias are divided into articles with one article on each subject covered. The articles on subjects in an encyclopedia are usually accessed alphabetically by article name and can be contained in one volume or many volumes, depending on the amount of material included.[1]

By this definition "the things I like" as you say, are all factors in my life and career that directly relate and effect both.

Madjabuds (talk) 06:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)Madjabuds

Sasha, wikipedia guidelines strongly frown on your editing your article to this extent. Currently, it looks like several users are disputing the appropriateness of the content and are attempting a discussion to establish consensus. Administrators who have contributed in this article have opinions that may actually not be any more important than another editor's opinion in this discussion. What's important is whether the discussion is guided by wikipedia policy and guidelines (which administrators are presumed to know). I've quickly skimmed through the article and believe that any content that can not be verified by a reliable third-party source should be removed and that the article could be written in a much more neutral manner. As for the introduction of the article, it should properly summarise or reflect what's to follow. If people agree that an appropriate intro might say that you are a pornographic actress who has certain mainstream roles and other projects outside of pornography, then go with it. Please assume good faith and don't blindly revert their changes as vandalism. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I would like to echo what Morbidthoughts has said. It's a dangerous game being involved in an article on yourself. You might, by definition, be the quintessential primary source, but again you need claims backed up by secondary and especially third-party sources. While you may be right on the definition of encyclopedia, you need to also have the policies of Wikipedia specifically in mind, particularly that of WP:NOTMYSPACE which trumps the definition of encyclopdia. And this policy is geared toward userpages. All the moreso this applies to articles about you. Note that you do have a little leeway on your userpage. Valley2city 02:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I have made an attempt to neutralize the article. Unfortunately, the section "Early Life" has been erased for now as entire content was either uncited or not neutral. Before anyone points the vandalism finger, please read what was originally written and how it goes against Wikipedia policy in regards to "Wikipedia is not a soapbox". I believe I have removed most deadlinks and redirected those areas of the article to existing references.Nabulzi (talk) 12:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Early Life has been edited down; the Los Angeles Magazine Article was full of misquotes this has been discussed many many times. Madjabuds (talk) 07:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)Madjabuds

Given previous discussion regarding validity of this article in terms of your edits, I've restored "Early Life" to Morbidthoughts previous edit because it seems as though you are adjusting this Wikipedia page to suit your public image needs. Misquotes which have missed out on a few words are common, but fabricating an entire paragraph? Nabulzi (talk) 21:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Just a note that WP:REDFLAG applies here and that the person who adds the material has the burden of proving that it complies with that policy. Further, WP:BLP states that we should be tolerant of people who try to remove errors about themselves. For all we know, Sasha could have been talking about her friends growing up and the author of the lamagazine article misattributed it to her. However, if there was a serious error like this, she should ask LA Magazine to print a retraction. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The entry is rife with unsourced or poorly sourced material. (Meaning that almost all material is not provided through original research or was provided by the subject herself.) Most sourcing refers to stories about the subject, where the research was provided by quotes from her (circular). Please stop editing this entry Madjabuds. It now contains only third-party verifiable information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrbot22 (talkcontribs) 19:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

You have a mistaken understanding of reliable secondary sources. Information gleaned from interviewing the subject by third parties is not original research. You can confirm this at the reliable sources noticeboard or original research noticeboard. Your repeated removal of sourced content is coming close to violating the spirit of WP:POINT. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I ran into this article after watching one of her videos. I think it is alright to write an article about oneself if one is openly a porn star and profits from it. That said, as a wikipedian I think the article , being atop of the results in a google search can be easily the target of self-promotion. Not that it makes a big difference given the fact Sasha Grey is just a product. However as a product we can take for instance the article about Microsoft which has been heavily criticized after the Wikipedia Scanner Project found heavy editing to the article from people working at such company. Having the very own Sasha Grey editing her own article is great since she can possibly add valuable information regarding her own personal and professional life (if there is such a thing in porn) but I agree with some wikipedians here about the fact that Sasha might be using it as a vehicle for self-promotion. Because of that I believe a neutrality template should be added and furthermore, this article should be closely watched from editing coming from Username Sasha Grey and related IP addresses related to her geolocation. Thanks Camilo Sanchez (talk) 05:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any specific instances where the article's neutrality can be improved so it can be improved? Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the templates you added as the presense of the subject does not automatically create a conflict of interest or a POV problem. If you feel otherwise, then please point out the specific problems. Tabercil (talk) 16:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Page is a sham

This is one of the major things wrong with Wikipedia, in which every flash in the pan/web celeb/whatever has a page they edit and control. This isn't myspace, this isn't twitter. This is supposed to be an educational encyclopedia. Tell me how a porn star with an elaborate, self serving page achieves this? I'm not saying this page doesn't deserve to be here, but it needs to be cut down by at least 90%. I lobby for this all the time on pages I feel are way too controlled by a single entity, either corporate or biographical, so this isn't based on any particular prejudice. Now in theory, Wikipedia allows for pages to contain as much info as factual and referenced, meaning someone could have an article hundreds of pages long, filled with so much stuffing you'd think it was Thanksgiving. Like those pages, this page should be cut to the bare bones, leaving all those other factual tid bits left to her own personal website (which she has), where she can talk/write/sing about herself til the cows come home. Wikipedia articles shouldn't be e-peen contests where bigger is better. It's not, trust me. Fadedroots (talk) 09:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed! Could some responsible Wikipedia person edit this thing down? It's longer than many important, historical entries. This is a PR machine for a porno actress who goes on the Tyra Banks show to proclaim she is the queen of the gang bang. Ugh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Why do I get the feeling that it is no coincidence that you chose to complain about this here? I can show you dozens, if not hundreds of pages about actors and other performers that go on about every irrelevant detail of these people's lives ten times more than this one does. We have a fucking article on Brangelina, for God's sake! Unlike this crap, the Sasha Grey article is mostly about her work; the personal life section is two (!) lines -- of course there is the shocking revelation that she actually intends to make money with her work, something that would never come to the mind of James Cameron or Angelina Jolie. But of course these people are nice enough to at least act like they care about 16th century sexual morals most of the time, as a good American should.
To sum up, another shallow attempt to take it out on the "dirty" arts. -- Imladros (talk) 05:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Not more with this,please.

I would like to stand out the following point.The article has a seccion about her personal life and maybe all those things could be put there.I think that she is right when she say: "the things I like" as you say, are all factors in my life and career that directly relate and effect both. On this way,I think that is only a public relevance’s problem.

Vicond (talk) 12:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Please check the external links. Two of them contain hardcore pornography and contain hardcore pornographic pictures. (On you have to click an "I'm over 18" button first in order to see the pictures in the article) Please remove those links from Wikipedia. -- (talk) 19:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Removal of poorly sourced material, per Wikipedia Bio Guidelines

I have been discussing this page for more than a month and after multiple users agreeing with me, they lost interest and the subject and her army have stepped back in to continually add poorly sourced info and revert good faith edits. Read the article from beginning to end AND all of its supporting sources and you will see that almost all sources point back to quotes which the subject gave in interviews. This sourcing (as well as the subject's own edits) are not reliable and fall under the "immediate removal" rule under Wiki bios. All material that can be verified by reliable third party sources has been left alone. Submitted in good faith. Jrbot22 (talk) 19:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Even though I believe you're misapplying WP:BLP, you can also voice your concerns at the biographies of living people noticeboard in order to get neutral editors involved in this dispute. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not going to get into the merits of the biographical material, but your removals have also removed interwiki links as well as meta data, which is considered vandalism regardless of what else is happening with the edit. I recommend not removing those ever. -MBK004 20:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we are misunderstanding one another, Morbidthoughts. Your second sentence above under pedia is exactly what I am taking about. "Information gleaned from interviewing the subject by third parties is not original research." This is exactly what is happening in almost every source in the entry. For instance, LA Magazine garnered most of its info from the subject. I stand by my edits (as vast as they might be) because this poorly sourced info is to be removed immediately per Wiki bio guidelines. The fact that this alters the construction of the page is irrelevant when that construct falls within the poor sources. Again, submitted in good faith. Jrbot22 (talk) 21:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I am understanding you completely and disagree. Simply, because a source interviewed the subject does not make the source poor or unreliable. Again, I ask you to consult with the reliable sources noticeboard to confirm this. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Yet people keep on removing parts of the entry containing direct statements from Grey about her specualization in multi-partner scenes of up to 15 men and that she has suffered from STDs as a result of her carrer choice because my source is the actual Tyra Banks interview where she is sitting there saying this with her own mouth, in her own words, because for some reason this type of YouTube video is unreliable. Mind-boggling. We have an adult actress publicly explaining relevant aspects of her career herself on a television appearance that can be directly referenced, and they are edited out for being unrelable and offering undue weight. I guess this page should just be a substance-free resume/CV for her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Please read the policy on biographies of living people very carefully and then the policy on verification using proper sources. Youtube is not acceptable source for these biographies where it can not authenticate videos uploaded by some unknown user. The perceived relevance or importance of an assertion by an editor does not override issues of verification. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Morbidthoughts is correct about the verifiability issue, and I also feel that this information (about multiple partner scenes and STDs) is being presented in a form that constitutes undue weight. Aryder779 (talk) 19:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

If a famous bank robber is shot during a robbery or if a famous general is hit with shrapnel during a battle, no single person here would contest that this should be reported in his or her wikipedia entery as pertinent to the bio. In this vein, it is clear that Sasha Grey openly reporting to Tyra Banks that she has contracted STD's during her work should be included. Likwise, if we could verify that a robber did not only overpower the occasional bank guard or two, but once shot his way out of a throng of 15 cops, we'd want to add that. If it was his speciality, we'd like to highlight it, perhaps as a special section in the entry. For this reason, Grey's 15-guy scenes seem to warrant their own section here in her entry. Lack of these things shows a bias against an accurate and fulsome entry about Ms. Grey. This is nothng more than her online resmue and career-booster. (talk) 15:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

IMO, the STD info is out of place here in Sasha's article; it might be better placed in pornographic actor. Tabercil (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick "outside" view - if the STDs have actually affected her various roles then perhaps it's of note. Otherwise, more than one in 300 folks in the US have chlamydia - and Gonnorhea isn't far behind. Is there a significant reason why a porn actress catching an STD should be more relevant to this article than all the other porn stars that have contracted similar? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

There are higher rates for STDs among porn stars - see Pornographic actor#Pornographic actors and STDs. However, given that information, I don't see why we need to specifically point that out on Sasha's page. Tabercil (talk) 22:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

1)She candidly discusses this fact during an interview with Tyra Banks, and says that it has affected her earning power, as it forced her to miss work. She cites her earnings as about $150k a year, not including the weeks she was out of work due to an STD. If this purports to be a biography, and not just a resume for the promotion of Grey's career, then this fact about her life is relevant. This seems pretty obvious. Neitzche's STD's are figured prominently in his bio, and I assure you that any serious bio of any notable person will include mention of interesting medical facts in her life such as an STD.

2) If she is a porn actress, why aren't her porn specialities relevant to this article? Because some prudes might find them gross? If a porn actress is notable for having group sex with up to 15 people, something that many other actresses demure from, then don't we have a duty to record this fact? Isn't this evidence of Scott's observation about "what she's willing to do?"

3) Another, larger problem is the apparent categorical unsuitability of youtube as a source, because this ban is simply bad epistemology that is a disservice to wikipedia. The spirit behind it is that anyone can upload anything and therefore there is no prima facie reason to declare youtube reliable. This is quite epistemologically different than stating that youtube is never reliable. If the upload is a professionally-produced, previously-broadcast segment between two famous people that does not appear to have been edited or altered, then it is epistemically reasonable to say that the piece is presumptively reliable. These types of uploads should be presumed reliable unless some person can show that one is an exceptional case in which a previously-broadcast, professionally-produced segment containing famous people has been edited or altered to be unreliable. This problem exists with most things on the web, so apparently most things on the web suffer from this reliability problem. The other irony is that youtube is remarkably similar to wikipedia in its openess, and this suggests that wikipeidis is never more than one edit away from being unreliable. The standards for youtube need to be changed to reflect that youtube can be relible in cases where it is a repository for previously-broadcast professionally produced journalism, and these instances should be countenanced as sources. (talk) 19:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

From Wikipedia, which is probably a reliable source: YouTube and other video-sharing sites are not reliable sources because anyone can create or manipulate a video clip and upload without editorial oversight, just as with a self-published website. In some cases, video clips published on YouTube may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed, or as a secondary source if they can be traced to a reliable publisher, but even then should be used with caution. They may also be used as a convenience link for material originally published elsewhere. Be careful not to link to material that is a copyright violation. (talk) 20:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Nah, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. It collates secondary sources. If you want to change policy, do it on the policy pages, don't use an article to do it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
With regard to the Youtube issues: You should read WP:NOR, WP:SYN, and WP:NPOV. It's not up to us to decide, based on a primary source (a television show that Grey participated in) that some comments absolutely need to be recorded here and others don't. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, meant to gather up and summarize secondary sources, not a secondary source that interprets primary sources. So, A.O. Scott says "Sasha Grey's in a lot of extreme porn;" that belongs here. Grey and Tyra Banks have a conversation in which STDs come up -- not really our place to include it. Aryder779 (talk) 02:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed information about contributing vocals to Perry's track, as he denies it here, Interview with Perry, in addition to knowledge of her existence. Relocated A.O. Scott's quote as it's more suitable in "Porn career". The intro just seems more fact based than opinion. Expanded "Early life" as there's little information there compared to other areas of the article. Nabulzi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC).

Influences to...?

What did Bowie & Godard influence in her life? How does this tie in? I'm pointing out discontinuity in the article. It isn't encyclopedic content; it is namedropping (as well as BS).
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Let the reader make that determination. If she says it she says it. I mean Bowie did a lot of things in his career besides music and he kept reinventing himself constantly in his music. Maybe she sees herself the same way dabbling in other things like her music and acting the same way. As for Godard, maybe she just likes his movies or the unconventional themes in his movies and that might have influenced her choices in mainstream roles. According to a prior paragraph, she wanted to name herself Anna Karina at first. Maybe she sees herself as Karina in those Godard films? The point is the information is verifiable. Just because it doesn't expound on the why does not mean we automatically excise it because someone thinks its useless or bullshit. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for responding, Morbid. I thought I was taking the part of the reader and was being bold enough to cut what shouldn't be there. I do understand where you are coming from (with the readers making their own determinations) and agree with that approach. What comes to mind here is WP:NOT from which we have "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; merely being true or useful does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia."
Her statement, although verifiable, tends to look like someone threw a piece of trivia into the article as an afterthought. It would help greatly if it were placed within context to show significance. Otherwise it qualifies as WP:UNDUE which states "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. 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."
As it currently stands, her statement seems insignificant to the article. I would like to think that we don't just add statements because someone famous said them. Rather, I would hope that we would selectively choose statements based on quality. In other words, does it improve the article? Btw Morbid, your expansion is on the right begins to illustrate a good tie-in and show relevance.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 04:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Sasha Grey (Madjabuds) editing page

It was previously agreed (see above) that Grey would have less control of this page, because it was brought up that she was using this page as self-promotion, for selective public information, a soapbox, amongst other issues. Maybe she wishes she hadn't said X or Y information in past interviews, but deleting anything and everything which Grey doesn't believe is good for the image she is now trying to create doesn't help a Wikipedia page. As brought up before, if you believe your words were taken out of context (funny that anything you take as negative is suddenly the interviewers poor journalism) it should be an issue taken up with that very person to eliminate further disturbances to your public image. Nabulzi (talk) 08:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Subjects of biographies should be treated tolerantly while trying to remove information that may be incorrect. See WP:BLPEDIT. If overall the LA magazine is unreliable as a source that we are faced with the dilemna of picking and choosing from an interview, I would advocate not using the interview at all. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I have edited the information so it isn't controversial. I strongly believe that it's not an issue of the LA Magazine interview being unreliable, it's the usage of content Grey has let slip that she doesn't want to go public. She appears content with the information pulled from that interview for Wikipedia, just not when referencing her, her friends and her step-father's drug usage. Nabulzi (talk) 00:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Zak Smith

There's been some editing back and forth. I've recently read Zak Smith's book We Did Porn, in which Sasha Grey is included (in a very slightly fictionalized form) as "Tasha Rey." One chapter is a detailed satire of her appearance on Tyra Banks' show and the way she was treated. Grey herself has been very critical of the show and the way it was edited in other interviews (I can dig these up if necessary). This is notable and verifiable information, but my edit has been reverted twice. Aryder779 (talk) 17:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The other editors probably feel you are giving undue weight to the caricature of the show and is seen as an attempt to promote Zak Smith in an article about Sasha Grey. If the caricature truly notable why isn't it even mentioned in the Zak Smith article? Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Edits reverted

Can someone explain the reason for the recent revert by Elizabeth Bathory (talk). I believe my edit was well-sourced through the Vanessa Grigoriadis article, with which I have updated information already covered in this article. If it is a matter of poor sourcing, refer to the link. If it is a matter of vandalism, again, refer to the link. All material used has been taken directly from the article and been placed appropriately. Nabulzi (talk) 12:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, your edit doesn't pass WP:BLP. Wether or not she refused to take the SAT, that she has referred to STDs as a common cold, or that she has an open relationship, cannot be included in the article. Have a read for yourself. Thanks. Erzsébet Báthory(talk|contr.) 12:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Cheers for the clarification. I'll edit the article to exclude the above. Re: the open relationship, there are multiple sources for this including a video at 2:18 in which Grey admits she is in one. Seeing as she appears quite open and happy to approach this subject, I don't understand how this breaches WP:BLP. Just a thought. Re: the POV issues, there are definitely POV quotes existing in the article. It seems biased to include some and not others. Nabulzi (talk) 02:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


Is it is considered noteworthy, I think I will start a short article on the industrial project ATelecine. If anyone has good sources, it would really help. Thoughts? Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 17:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind, WP:MUSIC. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply and indeed we'd need to keep that in mind. I believe, but need to confirm, that the aforementioned project would meet at least two criteria listed. I will do some research. Any contribution to said would be great though. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 18:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I had also considered starting that article, particularly after obtaining three of aTelecine's releases. Regardless, there are simply not enough sources, and not enough information relating to the project, to start it just yet. All I could find was some interview where Grey claims aTelecine was started accidentally, and website profiles of the band where they just describe their music. I'll wait a while until more information surfaces relating to that project before starting to write the article. Sentient Planet (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Early Life

This section is all over the place, and should be updated with more recent sources. The fact that she considered stripping as an option is irrelevant, that's like saying she contemplated being a cashier. It's also written that, at 16, informed her mother she was going to move out Can anyone verify if she indeed moved out?

CP30777 (talk)CP30777

Since this can't be clarified as fact, I'll remove it as it's been quite some time since this was addressed. CP30777 (talk) 08:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)CP30777


She is brazilian! Born in Fortaleza, Ceará. Moved to USA when she was 5 years old.,,MUL1620845-9798,00-ATRIZ+PORNO+BRASILEIRA+E+CAPA+DA+PLAYBOY+AMERICANA+DE+OUTUBRO.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem with this is that we have an extensive interview that was done with her by Los Angeles Magazine that clearly says: "Sacramento, where Sasha was born and grew up". I'll go with the folks who have actually interviewed her. Tabercil (talk) 01:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree. Those Brazilian/Portugese links are not reliable sources. If she indeed did live in Brazil for the first 5 years of her life, it would have been mentioned earlier. Nymf hideliho! 02:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
So the interview says Sacramento, yet the infobox says North Highlands? As far as Globo being an unreliable source, they're widely accepted on WP as reliable. I don't really know anything about Sasha Grey so I'll leave it alone, but someone should at least fix the conflict between the infobox and the article. XXX antiuser eh? 06:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
North Highland appears to be a Sacremento suburb so I can see why folks would conflate the two, and if I'd read further into the article itself it would have been clear: "She was born north of the American, in a neighborhood named North Highlands". So fixing. Tabercil (talk) 12:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Had Globo been an interview, I would have accepted it as a source, but right now it's only a blurb of some sort. The fact they describe her as a "Brazilian beauty" makes me question it even more, since her parents obviously aren't Brazilian. I also think that it would have been mentioned in interviews such as this. Nymf hideliho! 13:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


Is it worth mentioning here that Grey was on the cover of Playboy magazine for October 2010? (talk) 21:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

If properly sourced, yes.--Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 13:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Done. (talk) 23:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the addition. --Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 23:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

First Book: neü sex

It seems her book has yet to come out. It may be worth removing this from her bio altogether until their is more information on the status, as isn't a reliable source for the release date. Thoughts? CP30777 (talk) 05:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)CP30777

Debate over her porn career

User Nymf has removed a sourced article which states "while she is no longer acting in porn films". This is a clear and reliable source, mind you, originally added by another user. I can provide more references to the debate if necessary. CP30777 (talk) 02:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)CP30777

No, it says: "Grey’s not actively making porn films at the moment". Big difference from claiming that she's retired. Nymf hideliho! 02:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I whole heartedly disagree with you. Now we're just debating semantics. If the reference isn't clear enough for you, there are enough reliable sources that state she is a "former" porn star. Not to mention she hasn't talked about doing any porn shoots on her personal twitter or website for quite some time. Here are multiple sources which clearly state "former" porn star, I'll go ahead and add one of them in the article:

CP30777 (talk) 02:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)CP30777

No, it's not really semantics, but original research. Those AVN sources are fine though. I am still going to revert to my version (with "former" added + an AVN source), since yours is full of formatting errors and a couple of WP:WEASEL words. Is that a fair compromise? Nymf hideliho! 02:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a fair compromise, I'll meet you back here if I have further questions.

CP30777 (talk) 02:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)CP30777

The current introduction is ridiculous and made me laugh. Namely the part that says "perhaps best known as a former pornographic actress/performance artist". First of all, "perhaps", really? She is, always has been, and always will be best known for her pornographic scenes. When she films over 200 mainstream movies, releases over 200 music CDs and books, that might change (but probably won't even then). Secondly, while it's true she hasn't filmed any new adult scenes for about a year now, she never officially retired. There was never an official announcement. Every source is simply basing its decelerations on the fact that she hasn't been active for a while, there was no retirement. If anyone is sane around here, the old format ( an American pornographic actress who is also active in mainstream acting, modeling and music.) will be restored until she becomes best known for something else and/or officially retires. Don't forget the history of Sasha Grey editing her own article over the years to make herself look better. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC).

In regards to the updated intro it's a tedious involved process which needed to better reflect the article, and these edits were all made in Good Faith. However, User: Nymf and I have come to an agreement that the current source for her retirement needs to be replaced with the above references that do indeed validate her retirement due to an original research conflict-and that the introduction included weasel words(i.e. "perhaps"). Nymf has agreed to make the changes, if not done in 24 hours, I'll go ahead and change them out. The rest of your concerns seem to be based on your personal views, so please remember to keep a NPOV when editing the page, or come to the talk page to further discuss before making changes.

CP30777 (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)CP30777

Sorry, I've just been super busy. I just did the change and copyedited it a bit further as well. I think it turned out well. See what you think. Cheers. Nymf hideliho! 15:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks great, thanks again for your help.

CP30777 (talk) 04:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)CP30777

Does she follow religion?

I heard her parents are catholic, but i guess she's not. Can anyone confirm? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PassaMethod (talkcontribs) 14:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Her father is a Greek-American. So he is probably greek-orthodox and not catholic.-- (talk) 08:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
According to her MySpace page, she's atheist. She also made comments about Jesus Christ in an interview.--Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 01:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Article weighted towards her mainstream career

How many people are working in this article? Every time I visit it I realize the article has been heavily editorialized to portray this actress as a mainstream model/actress and not as what she has been known to be her primary profession. Has anyone noticed this or is it just me? --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 20:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. Half the lead and half the article is about her porn career, which she has now distanced herself from. Would you have us ignore her new ventures? Nymf hideliho! 20:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Look, it is obvious the girl has been trying so hard to do the cross over to main stream. It is a known fact she (and probably people that know her or admire her) does edition to this article, which happens to be like the second to top link on every google search. I really would like to have the community look closely to this article for any self promotion and conflict of interests. That's all. Nothing wrong with reviewing articles every now and then. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 15:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, there is nothing wrong with that. Can you point out any specifics, and maybe we can work on it? Nymf hideliho! 15:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Offhand I don't see anything that jumps out as glaringly self-promotional - about the only change I'd make is maybe see if I could trim the section on the Girlfriend Experience down a bit. As Nymf said, if you point to any specific issues it'll really help out here. Tabercil (talk) 16:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
The section of The Girlfriend Experience is full of quotations and looks as the most important part of the article. I think that belongs to the movie article itself. That needs to be trimmed down. That to begin with, I will keep a close watch on the article as I truly believe it's a vehicle of self promotion. I encourage other editors unrelated to this article to do so too. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 17:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I have added a few templates so the article can be improved. The adult career of Sasha Grey is extensive and requires expansion. The article is heavily weighted towards her mainstream roles in music, modeling and film. This needs to be addressed. ON the issue of her filmography, it only includes her mainstream films, what about her adult films? don't they count? Maybe a full article with both, mainstream and adult filmography could be created? Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
That's because the majority of reliable sources report on her mainstream career and do not cover her pornography career in such details. WP:UNDUE only requires that the appropriate weight is given to what reliable coverage is out there. That's been done. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
So are you saying the very porn websites she has worked for are not reliable because they sell her porn? So in an article about a car such as Ford or Mitsubishi you can't use their websites as sources because they are selling their own brand name?. That makes no sense to me. So the only reliable websites are those that don't imply any explicit pornographic behavior from a porn start?. I don't get it dude. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 19:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Independent websites are always preferred especially when discussing a person or product. Just because a website covers pornography does not automatically make it unreliable. However, most pornography sources have very low reputations for fact checking and have little editorial oversight. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
You don't need "reputation" to accept the fact that Sasha Grey does humilliation/submission bdsm, that she is able to gag on large penises and that's why she might be preferred by the porn filmmakers (which is what I added and you reversed in the article). You can see it in most of her you even watch porn dude?? You work so heavily on porn articles but you act with the editorial guidelines of the New York Times. Porn is porn brother, and if you are covering porn stars and porn articles you have to be objective and cover what they do as porn stars, not with undue weight to their small roles as mainstream stars. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Sounds to me like you have an agenda. Is that the case? Nymf hideliho! 21:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
If you call making an encyclopedic article cover the primary profession of a porn star with the same enthusiasm it covers her smaller mainstream roles having an agenda then yes I do. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 07:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Good luck - you'll find that a lot of websites involving pornography won't pass the muster as they won't be considered reliable sources, which is a must if you're looking to add information to articles about living people. As Morbidthoughts said, the fact that the article has more weight given to her mainstream career is due to the higher quantity of reliable sources available for use. Tabercil (talk) 19:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Music section: discography list

Seeing as aTelecine now have a number of releases under their name (4 or 5), I think a short list of their discography under the music section is appropriate. Thoughts? Sentient Planet (talk) 14:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

aTelecine, revisted.

Does anyone have a sense of her band aTelecine has enough third party coverage to warrant its own article? Just thought I'd ask before starting one. Any reliable sources that should be checked out? Thanks.--Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 01:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

No, it doesn't have enough coverage to justify a separate article. The coverage I've seen that mention the duo is focused on Sasha. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Aight, that's essentially what I've found too. Doesn't seem to have a lot of coverage in music-oriented media. Perhaps later if/when there is more third party sources.--Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 02:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Not only does it not warrant a separate article, nothing that aTelecine has done meets Wikipedia's threshold for notability by a musical artist. DFS (talk) 01:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

How are we defining retirement?

An IP changed the "Years active" field of the infobox to say that she was active from 2006 to 2011 instead of it saying "2006 to present". (diff) I reverted the edit with the edit summary saying "She's retired?". (diff) And User:Morbidthoughts reverted my edit while saying that her retirement is cited in the article. (diff)

So, how are we defining retired as far as the infobox is concerned? Yes, she retired from porn and that is in the article and it's cited. Though she has not retired from acting in general. According to IMDb, she has two films coming out in 2012 and another in 2013. Yes, I know about WP:RS/IMDB. Even so, I don't see anything that says that she has retired from acting in general. Her profession in the infobox is listed as simply "actress". It doesn't specify pornographic actress. So isn't it fair to say that she is still active as an actress? Additionally, a cursory search of GNews comes up with this article as the first hit wherein it says that she is to be in a Linda Lovelace biopic. The same film is listed on IMDb as the 2013 release that I referred to.

So how are we defining "retired" in this case? Dismas|(talk) 05:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Completely had a braino there. Was operating under the assumption that the infobox was still the adult template. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

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 (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

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 "" 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. (talk) 03:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 November 2012

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

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

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. -- (talk) 15:04, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

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)
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. -- (talk) 07:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
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)

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)

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)
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)
I suppose she wouldn't be considered Jewish by Orthodox standards, but there are (or were) Polish Jews and even Greek Jews. --anon. (talk) 23:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

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 ( 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)

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)
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)

External links modified

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.

☑Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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)

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)

See the above conversation about erroneous info in "Personal life" section that's now been redacted. In any interview she's had since leaving the porn industry, where the subject has come up, she's said that it was her choice to do it. I consider that standing until she makes a statement contradicting that. TMZs tabloid claims don't rise to that. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 20:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
I missed it. Where did MorbidThoughts say that TMZ was a parody? Dismas|(talk) 00:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Everyone's saying this is goofy celebrity gossip. -bleak_fire_ (talk) 01:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Parody is not the same as goofy celebrity gossip. See parody. Dismas|(talk) 05:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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?. (talk) 00:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

"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 "", 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 (talk) 02:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

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)

I've finally acted on this, since there seems to be consensus that TMZ, like National Enquirer, is not an acceptable source (notably, TMZ does not even present the "court documents" they claim to have obtained), especially with WP:BLP issues concerning both Sasha Grey and Ian Cinnamon. There were two other sources cited, but those simply referred back to TMZ as the source.

It has been two years now and Sasha Grey has given several interviews since then. I've searched, and I have yet to see one where she claims to have been pressured or coerced in any way to work in porn, nor any in the last few years where she talks about Ian Cinnamon at all. It is likely that they are no longer in a relationship, so I also changed the previous sentence to emphasize that they were in a relationship as of 2009 and dropped the part about their being engaged. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I have added a sentence about the restraining order (which Grey confirmed in a 2017 Daily Beast interview), but omitted the allegation that her ex pressured/coerced her into adult films (which was not specifically mentioned in the Daily Beast interview). ZeppoShemp (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

External links

Seven links in the "External links" section is too many for a B-class article. Four, or five with consensus, but links creeping in, because of course they are all important, is excessive. Not all aspects of a subjects life, including web presence, needs to be recorded in the "External links" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otr500 (talkcontribs) 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Somebody, maybe you, already fixed that. For the music I replaced a very poor Allmusic link by {{Discogs artist}}, after doing something similar on dewiki. – (talk) 09:37, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Wasn't me. It was trimmed on Oct. 14th. I usually revisit tags but didn't. I see I also did not sign my comments above, that resulted from placing an "External links" tag on the article, on the same date. Thanks, Otr500 (talk) 12:29, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Smash Cut vs. Bloodlust Zombies

@TheGracefulSlick: How about as reference? As secondary source IMDb isn't exactly WP:42, but good enough to find a trailer for the movie. – (talk) 22:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

  • We generally try to avoid IMDb, even as an external link.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Okay, might do it, there are over 500 links to this site from enwiki. – (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Steam5: It was the wrong movie and another actress; it should be okay now. – (talk) 00:38, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Resolved: by Steam584.46.52.51 (talk) 02:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


At the moment #Controversies is about one event in 2011, the Guest Reading Program at Emerson Elementary School. This short section could be merged into #Activism together with her PETA, NSA, Equal Pay Day, … activities: Sections about #Controversies are unusual in WP:BLPs. OTOH controversial activism is as it should be, she uses her click bait  value intentionally. – (talk) 11:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Implemented pending review + reviewed. – (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Eminem video appearance

How about to add some notion on her appearance in one of Eminem's videos?: (talk) 21:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

The video is listed under #Music videos. – (talk) 18:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

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 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

Apparently the archive bot wants a timestamp, and that URL is useless. – (talk) 07:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


"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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrdeleted (talkcontribs) 19:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Somebody fixed that, no semi on the page, only fictionalized. – (talk) 07:11, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Model vs. writer

@Steam5: About the short description; Grey's appearances as model were only a small part of actress (Penthouse etc.) in the 2006–2010 period. For a BLP writer+DJ since 2011 are more on topic. – (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Resolved: by Steam5, thanks, copied to wikidata. – (talk) 13:40, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Random observation, model is a disambiguation page including Das Model (1978), very apropos, but it requires time travel. – (talk) 15:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


A very short MaximoTV YouTube clip vintage 2010 for atheist isn't good enough for a BLP; some folks confuse not this god with no goddess at all. How about existentialist with one of the many sources for what she said instead of the shaky WP:SYNTH-atheist? – (talk) 06:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Updated to existentialist with fresher source, old source kept as is. – (talk) 10:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

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. (in Portuguese)

Apparently the archive bot wants a timestamp, and born in Brazil is clearly fictitious. – (talk) 07:06, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
If was about the famous Vice interview, the video is now listed as a reference for her David Bowie fandom. Getting ready for a GA nomination on March, 14.Face-smile.svg84.46.53.245 (talk) 13:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
I tried to find "The Insider" (CBS) on YouTube and with Google searches, but only one result was interesting.[3] Unionpedia is a red link (bad sign), but used on more than ten enwiki pages. Inconclusive, but not good enough for a WP:42 reference from my point of view. The "concept maps" on this site can be interesting to find new references or to check facts.[4]. – (talk) 18:50, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
It was v=dRDpXQYNQGo published on Sasha Grey's channel in 2006 (her site only linked to it), and she deleted those videos later. Apparently WayBack doesn't have it, and it cannot emulate a YouTube login or a YouTube vintage 2006 "yes, I'm old enough" check: google:v=dRDpXQYNQGo. – (talk) 22:41, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
WayBack has the FLV: "Sasha Grey insider interview". misssashagrey's channel on YouTube. December 24, 2006. Archived from the original on November 1, 2010. Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (help) (talk) 02:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
WayBack did not catch v=nrYcjaKWS1I (her famous manifest) before she deleted it.Face-sad.svg v=gCBZ96mVgGw was archived (don't bother, it's not too interesting.) – (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Great work

I think it's worth adding a comment here to thank "84" for their excellent work on this article. It's on my watchlist for some reason (I probably reverted some vandalism or something), and I've hugely enjoyed seeing it evolve so very well recently. Thank you. -- Begoon 13:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Selected adult films

At the moment the #Filmography contains "normal" (non-adult) films. I'd like to add one or two adult films: Broken starring Grey with David Navarro has no page, but it's mentioned on both BLPs and won a major adult award.[5] Counter-example, Fashionistas has a page, but "part 2" is only mentioned in one statement, and Grey was one of many actresses, irrelevant for the filmography, and covered in the prose + in the awards + in the separate list of awards and nominations + in the separate page for the corresponding AVN award ceremony.

The second candidate could be Circa 82, trailer available on Vimeo, if references exist. This might be (based on the trailer) one of the "punk-porn" films covered in the The New Erotic: Art Sex Revolution documentary. All I know about the latter is what the reference says, i.e., I haven't seen these films, but maybe it's as Matteo Bittanti wrote in 2010 (linked above): Sasha Grey forces us to rethink several expectations about art & pornography.

As long as it's WP:42, of course. The link was already rejected, because it's self-published, and even Googlebot + itwiki didn't help me with the notability of the Italian "Duellanti" magazine, where Bittanti published his thoughts in 2010. – (talk) 21:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Added Broken, if it's relevant for #Career it's also okay for #Filmography. – (talk) 06:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Pirates II: Stagnetti's Revenge is a similar case, 15 AVN awards, none directly related to Grey, added to #Career, but not to #Filmography. The removed "required review" protection makes me nervous. (talk) 05:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


@Bilorv: Maybe move this section to a better place. Talk:Sasha Grey/GA1 is apparently the review working space, and I'm not supposed to answer there. The user talk pages of the IP nominator or the reviewer are not ideal, maybe this section here is good enough.

  • The split and the restraining order were discussed here. The consensus for the TMZ source was apparently "not good enough". If that goes into the article we should also add a 2018 Twitter #whyididnotreport source, which might be unrelated.[6] Otherwise, sure, the source in the lede about the split from aTelecine can be added in #Personal life as general split. (That was actually done the day before yesterday 23:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC))
  • {{fact}} was added by me replacing a "verification failed" source, or IOW, I didn't simply miss it before the nomination. (11:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC))
    Fixed. (11:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC))
  • Lede improved: photo book + trilogy + notable works=… (as on d:) + known for=… (05:47, 18 March 2019 (UTC))
  • No summary of book I of the trilogy from me before I've read it.Face-tongue.svg (05:47, 18 March 2019 (UTC))
  • HelloTheMushroom edit summary: no WP:42 source (author works as illustrator at, but A review beats NO review. Some 3rd parties noted her.[7][8][9][10][11] (06:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC))
    • It's not correct that "A review beats NO review". Wikipedia can only include content from reliable sources. If there is no such content, then we don't include any reviews and that's fine. Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 10:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
      The source is maybe significant (as in long + detailed, with a link to a review of book I by the same author), presumably independent (I'm not aware of any other connection with Grey), maybe reliable, e.g., I just found that it was quoted by amazon on their product page under "Editorial Reviews" as This was an enjoyable piece of erotica and a great read to make those intolerable commutes in London a little bit more tolerable. (Sara Hello the Mushroom).
      But there are no other uses of this site on enwiki, also no mentions of "Hello the Mushroom" / "Sara Doucette" / "HelloTheMushroom". I'm not deleting this reference only because nobody else on enwiki used this blog as source so far, go ahead if you hate it. The edit summary was intended as fair warning, and now I think that "no WP:42" was wrong: The notability of the author and her blog as source is unclear, and certainly not yet established. – (talk) 12:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Bilorv: I've fixed the broken (maybe by me) "official retirement" blurb. It needs no better source, because she actually retired almost two years earlier (=no more new films), tried to be a producer for some time, stopped this when it didn't work out as planned, and the money she was willing to risk was spent: Sasha Grey on the 'first big failure' in her life, moving on on YouTube. There is no exact timestamp for her de facto retirement. Caveat, I have 76 videos in my Mismade Girl  playlist,[12] and 84 posts in a "privately shared" (unlisted) Mismade Girl  G+ collection.[13] Not coming to this review without lots of ammo, but I never shot for GA so far (since ~2005 :-) (09:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC))
    • It does need a better source. All article content needs to be verifiable. Surely there's a source to back up "Grey filmed her last adult film at age 21". Also, the Facebook link has stopped working for me; archiving the source is possible but a better secondary source would be optimal. Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 10:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
      Fixed with source for de facto 2009, "official" 2011 with one month too late Fox News. (11:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC))
  • Minor comment 295 is covered by 371 near the end of the #Career intro before the #Appearances. (14:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC))
    IAFD is not a reliable source. Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 15:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
    Obviously unreliable, your 295 is also IAFD.Face-smile.svg I'm not aware of any better count, the IAFD source was already used on the page when I started with it, therefore I recycled it for what I wanted to say, she directed two adult films (based on the IAFD credits mentioning 371), I added both with titles + references. If you hate it anyway the IAFD blurb can be deleted, keeping the then unsourced 2 with titles and references as is. Saying "directed at least two" as if we don't know better would be very near to a WP:WEASEL (in spirit). – (talk) 15:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
    I would imagine some interviews with Grey include descriptions of her body of work and I'd be surprised if none ever estimated how many films she was in. The IAFD source should be removed and the RogReviews sources already cover the other information. Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
    Okay, and of course "your" AFD is not "my" IAFD, sorry. (18:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC))
    Fixed. (11:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC))
  • Minor comment: post-modern feminist, that others see her as feminist was already covered in the first paragraph of #Personal life (14:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC))
  • Minor comment: Unsourced "controversial" removed from her Equal Pay Day video, the 1st source has only "sends a mixed message" in its title. (14:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC))
    That's not yet stricken in GA1#Minor, no idea why. (19:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC))
  • Minor comment: Guessing, the #Other awards aren't as well-known/famous as the awards in the table, the separate list of awards and nominations uses a similar layout for ages, no reason for me to pick another layout in this case: I rearranged the list article some weeks ago. (14:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC))
    This isn't the reason I would assume; the page simply categorises by award type and Grey didn't garner enough of the award types in "Other awards" for them to get their own section (there's no point having a table with one row). The lists on this page need to be merged. Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 15:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
    Fixed with HTML 3.2 table layout, #Other awards gone. (00:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC))
  • GFE Pierrot le Fou+Vivre sa vie reworded, starring Anna Karina (her 2006 alias) added, long Soderbergh quote trimmed, GFE has its own page. (00:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC))
  • Facebook April 2011 replaced by Fox News May 2011, last adult film 2009 with source (they say 300 adult films, ignored, they quote TMZ, also ignored). (04:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC))
  • Anna Karina, Lars von Trier, Werner Herzog, and Antonioni added to cineast blurb, "Sascha Grey" (sic!) removed from infobox aliases, Chemosphere with new source added to #Appearances. (04:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC))
  • Added another The Juliette Society review to #Books confirming the 1st review, Juan Luis Buñuel with wrong first name ignored, Catherine is not Sasha and Serowa is not Grey. (05:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC))
  • The IMDb source for Membunuh: Murder is required, because the Indonesian film is also known as Shrouded Corpse Bathing While Hip-Shaking. There is a good Jakarta Globe source for this film. (05:20, 20 March 2019 (UTC))
    @Bilorv: All other IMDb sources (there were three) are replaced. (19:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC))
  • Unclear "formerly" nit near her own "LA factory girls" agency rephrased, there are no other sources, the FB page is an empty placeholder. I think that she really represented herself, and that 9 to 5: Days in Porn mentioned it, but Google isn't helpful. She certainly had or has a #Lotta continua firm or agency or whatever it is, but the LinkedIn profile is seriously dead, not even a photo. (06:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC))
  • @Bilorv: Added #Lotta continua motto in the lede, replaced I Melt with You IMDb by IndieWire reference. (07:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC))
  • All unreliable sources fixed (or improved in one case), cf. GA1#Major. (10:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC))
  • All minor comments and nits fixed, catholic per suggested name="Esquire" source. (11:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC))
  • Long relationship with Ian Cinnamon added to #Background with the Playground 149 page for his PoV as 1st source, and the Rolling Stone PDF for her PoV. (13:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC))
  • Added Rotten Tomatoes to two films with the missing Would You Rather. Replaced "Quit" IMDb by another shaky reference, if that's not okay plan B is QUIT - Official Trailer 2 on YouTube. (16:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC))
  • Added Heat of the Night to #Music in the DJ paragraph. (16:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)) (talk) 21:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC) 00:21, (talk) 23:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I don't understand why you can't comment on the review space—as far as I am aware, this is allowed. But I'm happy to comment wherever you prefer (please keep pinging me though!). The TMZ source is indeed not good enough but I presented a source from Complex and I've found a couple more from The Daily Beast and Daily Dot. These sources together (and any more we can find) are reliable, I believe, and mean that it's worth commenting on the restraining order and the accusations Grey made. However, unless reliable sources have discussed Grey's #whyididnotreport it then I don't believe it has a place in the article (secondary source coverage is how we determine which facts about a subject are significant enough to include in Wikipedia). Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 21:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I've replied to a couple of your points inline. Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 10:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
@Bilorv: No problem. Just in case, I'll be busy with other stuff tomorrow, and obviously I can't fix all issues today. – (talk) 14:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
@Bilorv: I'm not touching Саша Серова (Serowa) in the DB source on the Саша Грей (Grey) BLP, cf. w:de:Talk:Sasha_Grey#Als_Propaganda-Figur. Admittedly I "lost" (in the rough of a 2:1 rough consenus) on dewiki wrt "BLP issue".
Especially not after finding her #whyididnotrepot tweet on February 9, this agitprop was abuse. There are lots of other cases, where folks try to use her click-bait value without her consent, e.g., for obscure music. This BLP needs no #Trivia section, Madonna (the page, my model for some stuff here and on Emma Blackery) also has no #Trivia. A source claiming that she is "flat chested" instead of androgyn or similar, or "D-grade",[14] infuriates me. If folks disagree they can use DB as source, it's "only" yellow (not red) on WP:RS/P, with lots of entries in the WP:RS/noticeboard archives. I'm not volunteering to use DB as source.
DD as source is generally nice (and green on WP:RS/P), but like the Complex source based on the TMZ article about an unidentified court case, that's against the archived talk page consensus here, long before I started my GA quests (Grey + Blackery) in December. – (talk) 01:56, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


@Moxy: I'm not so sure about (old): Grey was cast for the seventh season of the HBO show Entourage, where she played a fictionalized version of herself  vs. (reverted): Grey played a fictionalized version of herself for the seventh season of the HBO show Entourage, apart from the bogus "for the" instead of "in the", played  supersedes was cast, doesn't it?
Looking into the edit history for this minor nit I saw that I didn't kill my earlier wannabe-improvement as planned, was cast  without played  doesn't cut it on this BLP. – (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Fixed today. I found no references for the two Kayla Crow  teasers on Vimeo directed by Paul Street, so that's not (yet?) good enough.[15][16] In one of the newer interviews used as references Grey mentioned that she wanted to play in an action movie. – (talk) 11:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Inferno by Matthew Wilder starring Grey (2011) also was never realised; four YouTube clips exist. – (talk) 15:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Inferno was released, and should be added to #Acting.[17] (talk) 10:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
It was not released, IMDb uses a 404 as final judgement. I've added it anyway to the #Filmography, because Linda Lovelace is interesting, although Grey didn't play her. 1st clip:[18], 3 more on the playlist. – (talk) 11:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Lindsay Lohan explains a part of the Inferno debacle, "later replaced while in court mandated rehab"; another part is Lovelace (film), at some point in time Inferno was just too late. – (talk) 03:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
The Girl from the Naked Eye (2012) never had a reference, fixed with / Roger Ebert. Durch die Nacht mit … had "1 episode" instead of … Sasha Grey und Mary Ocher, fixed + wikilinked. New section #Series with one table for "Television" + "Web series" under #Filmography, IOW, one section with one entry merged into another section with four entries. Oddly Open Windows (2014) was only listed in #Filmography, added to #Acting with a review and some facts. – (talk) 03:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
This Ain’t Star Trek XXX info imported from dewiki (#Acting 2009 + #Filmography.) – (talk) 22:09, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


  1. /GA1#Final paragraph 5 of 6 fixed. –2A03:2267:2:0:B8ED:C598:A71B:4D19 (talk) 05:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  2. For today I've had it with paragraph 4 of 6, the trimmed and rewritten lede makes sense for me. –2A03:2267:2:0:8498:22F:A2F6:437F (talk) 07:50, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  3. All overlong quotes trimmed, stripped, or removed, paragraph 3 of 6 addressed. – (talk) 08:34, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  4. WP:RS/N#Renee Ruin matches paragraph 1 in the final comments. – (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
    Fixed based on Just another blog. – (talk) 20:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  5. Paragraph 2 asking for "more detail" about #Acting and #Music is resolved for the latter, so this reverse count-down will go up to 7. – (talk) 06:57, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  6. Paragraph 2 #Acting also done, Entourage 7th season had fresh/rotten tomatoes, critics for films where Grey had no leading role ignored. – (talk) 13:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Infobox image

At the moment the infobox has "caption = Grey in 2010", should that be "caption = Grey for G4 at AEE 2010" or similar? Technical, "image_upright = 1.11" works for me, please remove it if it doesn't work for you. – (talk) 14:58, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Implemented. – (talk) 17:53, 31 March 2019 (UTC)