Talk:Cytherea (actress)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Cytherea's real name

• Why should we hide her real name? I've watched the film Tumbling After. It's her! She even confirms on the DVD. _______ is Cytherea. Arrentino (talk) 04:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, the name is redacted as all unverified contentious material must be removed, even in talk pages. Sorry. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, per WP:SELFSOURCE, if there is a published DVD (or self-published, broadcasted, or otherwise publicly distributed source) on which she herself says what her real name is, that seems adequate for its inclusion on Wikipedia – even if the source would not ordinarily be considered an adequate-quality source for other purposes – "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the following criteria are met ..." In this case, those criteria seem to be met. I suggest that the DVD or film in question could be cited as the source in this case. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

However, I suppose the fact that WP:SELFSOURCE might indicated that we could include her name, it does not mean that we should. I just read below of her recent traumatic assault, and it makes me think it might be best to leave her name out of the article, at least for the moment. We don't seem to know whether she would want her name being distributed at this time, and we should be cautious (e.g., per WP:AVOIDVICTIM: "Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization."). —BarrelProof (talk) 18:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Rape incident January 19

Hello everyone, I'm not very experienced in editing Wikipedia articles so I was just wondering if it's appropiate to include some kind of reference to the horrible events which happened to her in January 2015? To me it feels like a glaring omission not to mention this horrible story. Here are the sources: link, link and link. This is a YouTube video of herself talking publically about the event.

Furthermore, a fundraiser has been opened for her and there seems to be some social commentary surrounding the events. Therefore, I guess it's relevant enough to include into the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2C40:200:0:0:5EFE:A5C:84DF (talk) 03:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

No. Mainstream news media did not name her because of internal rules on rape victims and those other sources you listed that did are not considered reliable sources under wikipedia guidelines. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately PornWikiLinks is not a WP:RS. I found this source as well [1] that might provide for additional content. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 03:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• While I don't doubt at all that the incident in question did, in fact, occur, it seems like the coverage of it that's readily available seems to be becoming a "perfect storm" (and I loathe that term) of badness that Wikipedia should avoid at almost all costs. I don't want any part of the whole "GamerGate" nonsense...there's already been enough time wasted on that story in Wikipedia's various forums. Guy1890 (talk) 05:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Good point... --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 05:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• NOTE: I'm going to setup talk page archiving for this page here in a few days, unless someone objects before then. Guy1890 (talk) 21:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 24 March 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Number 57 17:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

---

Cytherea (pornographic actress) → Cytherea (actress) – Per WP:CONCISE. Subject is also the primary result in Google search[2]. Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 02:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Primary is Cytherea. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose by longstanding article stability and consensus across category, and WP:RECOGNIZABILITY. In the case of Hillary Scotts both have imdb entries, though the singer has evidently only acted in music videos, but more importantly all the same reliable sources don't describe "the pornstar Jane Doe" as "the actress Jane Doe", our dabs and categories are supposed to be recognizable and consistent with common WP:RS usage. The WP:COMMONNAME argument in the nomination in fact indicates the opposite: the nominator should provide evidence that "the actress FOO" is used more often than "the pornstar FOO" and "the pornographic actress FOO" in Google Books. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, porn is its own artform and, from a brief foray, I'm sure she performs to great effect. I'd suggest Cytherea (adult entertainer). She has not been involved in any form of performance outside of pornography but she seems to have done well there. I didn't see anything that I would define as acting but, if so, she seems very into method. GregKaye 10:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 27 April 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. arguments for brevity are challenged by arguments that the one-term "actress" is possibly misleading. I therefore find there is no consensus for the move. I strongly recommend a systemic RfC with wide input to settle this issue once and for all. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

---

Cytherea (pornographic actress) → Cytherea (actress) – Unnecessary disambiguation, and the latter already redirects to the former. I now realize there has been a RM on this article before, but per other recent RMs, such as those for Aja, Chloe and Savannah, there's no need for additional disambiguation on articles for pornographic film actresses, unless there's another article for an actress with the same name. This article should be moved to conform to the articles in Category:American female pornographic film actors, where almost all of the articles that require disambiguation simply use "(actress)". --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 05:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC) Fortdj33 (talk) 16:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - per general reliable sources which say "porn actress Cytherea", "the pornstar Cytherea" or "adult film actress Cytherea" or "pornographic actress Cytherea" and not "the actress Cytherea", in the same ways as general sources talk about any other person in the category. The three RMs noted above are the exceptions, the majority of recent spate of RMs have closed with the longstanding consensus in this category that we describe as per category and per reliable sources. It isn't Wikipedia's job to reengineer English language usage and convert all porn film actors to actors. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support - per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA #5, Consistency, which states "The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles." Consensus overwhelmingly favors using (actress) over (pornographic actress). See the discussions at Talk:Aja (actress), Talk:Chloe (actress), Talk:April O'Neil (actress), Talk:Savannah (actress), and Talk:Serenity (actress). Rebecca1990 (talk) 16:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Rebecca1990 is this RM notified anywhere? WP:NAMINGCRITERIA #5, Consistency, which states "The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles." is the exact opposite - longstanding consensus overwhelmingly favors using (pornographic actress) over (actress) and the same for (pornographic actor), have you looked in the (pornographic actor) category?

Also these three recent RMs which went against the majority were done misciting WP:PRECISE to argue for cutting words from categories in dab, which would mean e.g. Margaret Bennett (figure skater) must be moved to Margaret Bennett (skater) because "figure" is redundant, James Graham (sport shooter) to James Graham (shooter), Tom Barry (political analyst) to Tom Barry (analyst), Robert Abbott (game designer) to Robert Abbott (designer), Mark Allen (software developer) to Mark Allen (developer); that is not what WP:PRECISE means or says In ictu oculi (talk) 17:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Special:Log/Rebecca1990 this user has just moved dozens of articles from stable consensus per previous RMs to suit the 3 RMs which went the other way. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, I personally have no preference for one over the other. I just think we should be consistent with article titles. Consensus overwhelmingly favors (actress) and (actor) over (pornographic actress) and (pornographic actor). You should know this since you actually participated in all five of those discussions. Now, please cease your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior. It's disruptive. Rebecca1990 (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Rebecca1990 are you aware of the RMs which went the other way? Among the dozens of articles you have moved how many have RM results which you have overturned. Please put back the dozens of articles you have moved and use the RM process. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, are you referring to RMs like the one for Cytherea above? You do realize that one has only two oppose votes while the other five have a total of over a dozen different "support" participants, right? A dozen support voters trumps two oppose voters. Rebecca1990 (talk) 17:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, well this is last warning - yes there's been recent drumming up of support on WT Pornography for these moves and that has tipped the balance for the 3 latest RMs, but when you undiscussed moved Talk:Jill Kelly (pornographic actress) etc. you can see you're doing it counter a RM result, correct? You can see the previous RM, yes? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, as you can see by my edit summary at Jill Kelly, I was aware of the RM when I moved the article. But, as I've explained before, the overwhelming support for (actress) over (pornographic actress) in other articles trumps the three oppose votes for Jill Kelly.

What about the other articles moved counter RMs? And what's the point in having RMs at all if users can "trump" them when a minority of RMs go their way? In ictu oculi (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:NAMINGCRITERIA #5, Consistency, states "The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles." We can't just have some pornstar articles at (actress)/(actor) while others are at (pornographic actress)/(pornographic actor). We need to pick ONE. Consensus supports (actress)/(actor), so that's the one we should use. I only found five pornstars whose article titles will have to remain at (pornographic actress)/(pornographic actor): Wendy Williams (pornographic actress), Priscila Sol (pornographic actress), Ben Andrews (pornographic actor), Kevin James (pornographic actor), and Erik Rhodes (pornographic actor). This is because the article titles Wendy Williams (actress), Priscila Sol (actress), Ben Andrews (actor), Kevin James (actor), and Erik Rhodes (actor) are already taken by mainstream actors and actresses. In Cytherea's case, Cytherea (actress) is not taken by anyone else, so her article should be moved to that title. Rebecca1990 (talk) 19:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I ask again; what about the other articles moved counter RMs? And what's the point in having RMs at all if users can "trump" them when a minority of RMs go their way? In ictu oculi (talk) 22:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, the only RMs I've found that resulted in oppose are:

• Talk:Jill Kelly (actress)
• Talk:Taylor Hayes (actress)
• Talk:Hillary Scott (pornographic actress)

Now, in the first two RMs, voters only opposed moving Jill Kelly (pornographic actress) and Taylor Hayes (pornographic actress) to Jill Kelly and Taylor Hayes respectively. Those two discussions were not about shortening "(pornographic actress)" to "(actress)" in those article's titles. The only RM resulting in "oppose" for shortening "(pornographic actress)" to "(actress)" was Talk:Hillary Scott (pornographic actress), which only had two oppose votes. Were not going to return all (actress)/(actor) articles back to (pornographic actress)/(pornographic actor) just because two users don't like it. An RM for Hillary Scott is currently taking place and it's "support" votes are exceeding it's "oppose" votes so far. Rebecca1990 (talk) 02:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

If you look through all these RMs you'll see "oppose" votes from a wide range of WP:RM regulars and general editors, they just aren't turning up for every single (pornographic actress) RM. I think most readers will recognize moving an entire category and then present citing WP:NAMINGCRITERIA #5, Consistency, as an invalid argument. If you intend to make a case for a move then please print source search evidence that the subject of this bio is known as "the actress Cytherea" not "the adult actress Cytherea". In ictu oculi (talk) 04:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Consensus does not support your point of view. Your refusal to accept this and move on is disruptive. Rebecca1990 (talk) 05:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Rebecca1990 I would advise you to re read WP:CONSENSUS. When there is a good admin it is not about the vote but on an assessment of arguments. I'm really not sure how the WP:CRITERIA best apply to parenthetic disambiguation but please note that Precision is second on the list while Consistency is fifth. GregKaye 12:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I watched bits of a few videos and Cytherea certainly seems to have an engaging personality a featured in jerk off videos that actually involve speaking. in a search on her web site:

site:cythereaswetworld.com actress OR acting OR film OR act got no results.

A page search at https://twitter.com/realcytherea and sub pages shows no wording containing "act" or "film". the personal description reads: Cytherea @RealCytherea This is the official Cytherea twitter. I'm known as the Goddess of Gush and Squirtwoman. Spoil me:

http://www.avn.com/porn-stars/Cytherea-281829.html gives no related ref to "act" or "film" and introduce: "As far as adult industry sensations go, precious are the few who've created as earth-shattering a stir upon arrival as Cytherea, the Natalie Portman-esque enchantress whose signature talent—her propensity for expelling fluid when she climaxes like Old Faithful—simply floors all who witness it..."

from the beginning of latest video http://www.youporn.com/watch/10526761/squirt-legend-cytherea-fucks-a-happy-fan/ Fuck a fan 20, (which, when I tried to save the link gave me "The text you wanted to save was blocked by the spam filter. This is probably caused by a link to a blacklisted external site" which was a first) the apparent host, the clothed, loud and arguably less attractive one gives a first description as "fluffers".

While she may be a "Natalie Portman-esque enchantress" and, while she may be very good at what she does, she is not, at least in her outputs and her various presentations, Natalie Portman

The things I will do to defend the Wiki . :In all my research I found no support via WP:OFFICIAL. I would sooner support Cytherea (adult industry sensation) as per WP:PRECISE. GregKaye 12:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. The use of "pornographic actor/actress" is a longstanding naming convention which enjoyed consensus support in practice. The unilateral, undiscussed, sub rosa move of scores of articles after proposals to change the consensus practice failed was abusive. If, as Rebecca claims, "We can't just have some pornstar articles at (actress)/(actor) while others are at (pornographic actress)/(pornographic actor)", we must use "pornographic actor/actress", because of the documented duplication of names as well as the porn industry practice of using soundalike names like Lizz Tayler, which must be clearly distinguished. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 12:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

First of all, WP:Consensus can change, and it has. Users now support the use of "(actress)" and "(actor)" instead of "(pornographic actress)" and "(pornographic actor)". Secondly, I don't think this is a problem when it comes to pornstars using names belonging to mainstream actors. It is actually uncommon for pornstars to use the same name as a mainstream actor and spell it the exact same way. And the few that do share the same name with a mainstream actor will remain at "(pornographic actress)" and "(pornographic actor)". Consensus only supports using "(actress)" and "(actor)" when the title is available, which it is in Cytherea's case. No one is arguing that we should delete Wendy Williams (actress), a mainstream actress, and move Wendy Williams (pornographic actress) to that title. But there is no need to specify what type of actress a pornstar is in her article's title when there is no mainstream actress to differentiate her from. Rebecca1990 (talk) 13:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes I think that it would be fair to say that conclusions reached by consensus discussions may change, for instance, on condition that new arguments are presented. To be clear WP:CONSENSUS refers to rock solid policy and does not change. The policy states: "Consensus refers to the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia, and it is accepted as the best method to achieve our goals. Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." The whole point of consensus is to help us develop encyclopedic content. GregKaye 02:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support, already extensevily discussed in Aja, Chloe, Savannah and Serenity. No need of a scarlett letter in the title per WP:PRECISE. Cavarrone 17:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Cavarrone, The people we are currently discussing are widely described as "pornstars". Where is the shame? What shame? Why? Please justify your interpretation of shame. We don't go by WP:OR. In The Scarlet Letter "Hester Prynne,.. is required to wear a scarlet "A" ("A" standing for adulter) on her dress to shame her." How does this apply? No one is being labelled an adulterer. We are using the same terminology used by the industry itself which is also used when talking about the industry in reliable sources.

Yes there was extensive discussion at the locations you mention but an article title is meant to describe its subject. In comparison to my post above there has been very little actual content on the ways in which the artists concerned have both described themselves and been respectfully described. GregKaye 02:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Again, it was all already discussed in those RMs, including your arguments and mine. It's not a question of shame, it's a question of double standard, I specifically send you back to Savannah talk page for more context. Cavarrone 05:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support, and why is this even under discussion anymore? With the recent moves it looks like policy is set on this, and these names can just be moved to "actor" or "actress". This is the third one in a row I've commented up this morning, and I haven't seen a porn film in years (unless you count Les Mis, where prostitutes are portrayed, so should all those actors be renamed now?), and this now seems settled policy. Randy Kryn 11:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Randy Kryn one of the reasons it is still being discussed is because the noms of these moves have been asked what they propose to do about the 6 bios with pornographic and non-pornographic actors. They haven't acknowledged the question. What do you think should be done? (non-pornographic actor)? In ictu oculi (talk) 15:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi In ictu oculi}. I just looked at one, Wendy Williams, and that's an easy one. The main topic is aleady taken, and we have an Wendy Williams, American actress and Wendy Willaims, British actress. Do the other five have such easy fixer-uppers? I've only done a quick look on this page for one, and Williams was the first I found. Or do some have a major impasse where genre titles have to be used? If that's the case, 'Pornographic actress', or more likely 'Adult film actress' (the latter seems more 21st century), by all means. Randy Kryn 16:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

This isn't complicated at all like you're making it out to be, it's quite simple, every "(pornographic actress)" and "(pornographic actor)" article title will remain the same if a mainstream actor of the same name is occupying the "(actress)"/"(actor)" title. Both the pornstar and the mainstream actor will keep their article titles. We are not moving Wendy Williams (pornographic actress) to Wendy Williams (adult film actress) and we are not moving Wendy Williams (actress) to Wendy Williams (non-pornographic actress). Wendy Williams (pornographic actress) and Wendy Williams (actress) will keep their current titles. The only thing we're asking for is to have "(pornographic actress)" shortened to "(actress)" if, and only if, the "(actress)" title is available. That is it. This isn't hard to understand. Cytherea (actress) is not taken by a mainstream actress, so Cytherea (pornographic actress) should be moved there. Rebecca1990 (talk) 18:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Support exactly as put by Rebecca 1990. Pandeist (talk) 21:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Support per above - No reason to have "pornographic matress" on the end anymore. –Davey2010^Talk 02:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Oppose per In ictu oculi's reasoning. Hanswar32 (talk) 22:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Oppose per the cogent arguments in only-a-month-prior move denial. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

What exactly are you trying to achieve by voting "oppose"? We have several discussions (Aja, April O'Neil, Chloe, Hillary Scott, Mandingo, Savannah & Serenity) that resulted in consensus to shorten (pornographic actress)/(pornographic actor) to (actress)/(actor) in case you haven't noticed. And why did you revert my close of this discussion? Read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure #1: "any editor—EVEN ONE INVOLVED IN THE DISCUSSION—may close the discussion." Rebecca1990 (talk) 04:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Deceptive excerpt language only serves to demonstrate your bad faith. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 11:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I have also reverted the repeated close. For the record, I am someone who has not been involved in this RM discussion (or any others that seem related to the issue in question) and I am not expressing an opinion about what the outcome should be (and I am not an admin). Rebecca, I believe the relevant guideline to consider here is Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions, which starts with two items: "1) Don't close requested moves where you have participated in the move survey, and 2) If you are not an administrator you should be cautious when closing certain contentious requests". I suggest to wait for an admin to close this one. You seem to think there is a clear consensus, but there is clearly some opposition here from multiple experienced Wikipedia editors, and the warring over the matter is not appropriate and has been repeated long enough. There is no harm in waiting for an admin to close this. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Support per WP:CONCISE. And can we please wait for an uninvolved admin to close this? I don't care to see multiple moves in my watchlist any more. Dismas|^(talk) 16:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Support there's precedent (see Aja (actress)), complies with WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, and there's no need to brand people for whatever reason. The sticklers for what reliable sources say, I suggest, take a look at Sarah Jane Brown. Kraxler (talk) 00:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

(actress)/(pornographic actress) RfC

An RfC which may affect this article's title is currently taking place (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography#RfC: Should a person who has appeared in exclusively pornographic films be described as "(actor/-tress)" or "(pornographic actor/-tress)"?). Rebecca1990 (talk) 07:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Cytherea (actress). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for //www.avn.com/imagearchive/05/58/32/55832Nominations.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.avnawards.com/2005nominees_fr.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.avn.com/imagearchive/24/82/23/248223AVN_Awards_Nominations.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.avn.com/imagearchive/27/84/74/2784742007UpdatedNominations
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.avnawards.com/pdf/2008Nominations.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://xbizawards.xbiz.com/nominees.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)