Talk:List of pornographic actors who appeared in mainstream films/Archive 1

Ron Jeremy

Ron jeremy is missing a large number of films — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.89.147.129 (talk) 06:32, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Shu Qi

Shu Qi is not a pornstar, she just did some naked poses.--91.104.71.94 (talk) 05:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Format

Gonna format this as a table, so that it can be sorted by any of the given categories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.188.1 (talk) 18:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I have not done the above, as converting the large body of text into the format of a table proved difficult. Perhaps someone with better regexp-fu could take on this task.

Someone should certainly make it sortable, the order is suboptimal (an alphabetical list should be by surname). 78.150.111.74 (talk) 19:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Table looks good, what happened to the sorting? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

What about television?

Anyone object to changing this list to include television productions and not just movies? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 04:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Although it is not clear what you mean by "television productions", which is a very wide concept, but if you actually mean to say Made-for-TV films, I am favourable as these are legitimate films and as per title are "mainstream films" provided we indicate in a parenthesis that these are "Made for TV films". But if you mean appearances as regular actors or actresses in some television series or appearance in a particular episode on a certain television series, I am not favourable for their inclusion here on this page. It will be counterproductive and dilute the effectiveness of our page. But of course a totally separate listing under a separate page title could be contemplated for such roles in TV series and in episodes. werldwayd (talk) 04:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The first person that came to mind is Ashlyn Gere who was a character in the tv scifi series Space: Above and Beyond and also the X-files. So yes, I am including episodic TV series. Why would they dilute the list if they appeared on a nationally broadcast show? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 06:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I say diluted, because once this is allowed, we may be flooded with minor appearances in series in hundreds of cable and low budget series nobody watches. A brief look at present list shows most are well-known films. Of course the example of series you gave like Space: Above and Beyond and also the X-files are renowned, but guidelines should be in store for notability on series we may include. In any case, if such series will be included, we must certainly rename the page to a more appropriate title, and clearly indicate TV series as such when we list them. werldwayd (talk) 09:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 09:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

It seems like we are in agreement on this; I too do not wish the list to "be flooded with minor appearances in series in hundreds of cable and low budget series nobody watches". If we limit television appearances to broadcast (meaning major network) series and then of course state this at the top of the list and in the editor notes, do you feel this is adequate explanation? I'd also like to split the list up and add an alphabetical style TOC list from a layout/formatting standpoint to facilitate ease of viewing and Wikilinking.

By the way, in addition to my Ashlyn Gere example, I would include the appearances of India Summer and others in the series Sons of Anarchy in the list. Even though its a cable series, do you feel it merits inclusion? On the other hand, I would have a hard time justifying the inclusion of Brandi Love's single appearance (as Herself, not a character) on the reality tv show Lizard Lick Towing. Does that make sense? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• I don't feel it's fair to discriminate against television. Because by the logic shown here, then what about all the documentaries that have been made over the years in which porn stars appeared? It's very simple - just as you don't want documentaries diluting the pot, simply specify "scripted television". That eliminates realty TV (i.e. Family Business, the making of Debbie Does Dallas, stuff like Playboy's Foursome and things like Ron Jeremy being in The Surreal Life). As far as adult-oriented cable series, well I'm sorry - blame the makes of Game of Thrones and Boardwalk Empire, but explicit is in. And an acknowledged former porn star is credited in the opening of Game of Thrones from Season 2 onwards (she plays Tyrion's girlfriend), and Sasha Gray made her move into the mainstream in part by getting an ongoing role in the acclaimed Entourage, while Traci Lords was a regular on at least one series after making guest appearances in sitcoms like Married with Children. Simply say "scripted" and leave it at that. Either that or create a TV equivalent of this list. 68.146.70.124 (talk) 18:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• • Fair enough, it makes sense for TV appearances to be included. So do we make a new list or rename this one? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

• • • I suggest renaming of the page. Just add a new column called say "media" in which we specify film, television or documentary. I also suggest adding theatrical works onstage. Many have appeared onstage in such plays as well and gained popularity. As a new title, I would suggest: "List of appearances by pornographic actors in non-pornographic works"

Great idea, but is it a list of "appearances" or "actors"? Think we can add sorting at the same time? It was supposed to have it. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

What about theatre?

By the way this brings in the question of theatre and musical comedies. It is well worth our while to create a page for pornographic actors appearing in theatre werldwayd (talk) 04:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 04:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. Like who? I can't imagine there being enough to justify a separate page/list. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 06:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

BLP and sourcing

Re WP:BLP I have removed all the red link and non linked living names as noen of them were sourced and the subject matter means we have to be careful here. By all rights all the names should be deleted until a reliable source can be found for them re our core living people WP:BLP policy and given that articles such as List of performers in gay porn films and List of African-American pornographic actors have reliable sources for every single entry.♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 04:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Good idea, but the Tag is now unneeded. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Why is it unneeded. This article was nothing mroe than a massive BLP violation, implying that living ppl who work in mainstream films are porn stars too without a single reliable source. I have removed all the names and only names with good refs and of dead people should be restored♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh boy Squeak, why do you make so difficult to WP:AGF about your efforts when you are so disruptive? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 01:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Nope, Scalhotrod, I am not being even slightly disruptive. If you havent recently read the BLP policy please do so, removing the names of people who are alive from porn list articles when those people have not been reliably sourced is not disruptive but a positive contribution. Please become more BLP friendly, its a core polcy and you cannot stop people enforcing BLP by claiming it is disruptive to do so. What is of course disruptive is reinserting the names of living people who have been removed citing our BLP policy without sourcing them as was requested and you have done this twice today so be careful before making rash disruption claims, you might as well say our BLP policy is disruptive. You need to assume good faith on my part, at the end of the day I am doing this on behalf of every living person on these lists who wasnt reliably sourced. Why is this concern bad faith exactly? And why is removing the names of living people unsourced from porn articles disruptive, exactly. Please answer me quoting policies and guidelines rather than just expressing your opionions without reference to what these policies and guideliens actually say. Nowhere does it say enforcing BLP is disruptive and nor is an assumption of bad faith an adequate response to a BLP violation challenge, but I am sure you are aware of this already after so many years here. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 02:16, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Could you give the excerpt from WP:BLP that you are using to justify your deletions? --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Sure, Bob K31416. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Challenged or likely to be challenged states "Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources."

Then the next section Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced states "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards. Note: although the three-revert rule does not apply to such removals, what counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory material about living persons should consider raising the matter at the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on the exemption. Administrators may enforce the removal of clear BLP violations with page protection or by blocking the violator(s), even if they have been editing the article themselves or are in some other way involved. In less clear cases they should request the attention of an uninvolved administrator at Wikipedia:Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents." ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 02:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

It appears that you are removing the material because it is contentious and unsourced. First off, what is contentious about the material? --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Well the contentious is only from the second section but I have no issues saying that there may be living people who are mainstream actors and are being falsely accused here of having been porn actors without a reliable source and that may adversely affect their careers. Many people who are not involved int eh porn industry do not want to falsely be labelled as if they were. I ahve to say I dont think there is a clearer example of contentious than this article because it also has mainstream films as subject matter but any porn lists can be seen as contentious. For instance their are many very conservative governments in the world. What if someone who was incorrectly on one of our lists was denied entry to one of these conservative countries because their customs had wrongly identified this person as a porn worker based on one of our wikipedia porn lists. So contentious, definitely but even if it wasnt BLP compliance is required as the first section makes very clear. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 02:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Re "Well the contentious is only from the second section" — It's in both sections of WP:BLP that you excerpted.

Re "I have no issues saying that there may be living people who are mainstream actors and are being falsely accused here of having been porn actors" — Then there is no contention and the WP:BLP excerpts that you gave do not apply. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

You are right that both sections mention contentious material and this is contentious material so of course BLP applies. Why do you think it would not apply here? Why are you claiming a wrong accusation of being a porn star directed at someone who is not a porn star is not controversial? I am baffled here. lets be clear, this material is being challenged and it is controversial. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 03:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Re "Why are you claiming a wrong accusation of being a porn star directed at someone who is not a porn star is not controversial? " — I agree that wrongly claiming someone is a porn star would be contentious material. For which of the actors is that the case? I also note that you previously wrote, "I have no issues saying that there may be living people who are mainstream actors and are being falsely accused here of having been porn actors". --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

For any of the actors for whom there was not a reliable source. Thus the only way forward is to reliably source each and every living person for inclusion both as a porn star and as a mainstream star. Until we get that reliable source we are open to make wrong assertions that someone is a porn actor when they are not or have appeared in a mainstream film when they have not. This is how we ensure that wikipedia is accurate, it is our watermark, and it is especially important with living people. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

An unsourced assertion that an individual is a pornographic actor is a clear and unambiguous violation of WP:BLP policy - and per policy, such unsourced assertions must be "removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". This isn't open to negotiation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

You don't need references for this article due to the references being in the notable article. If the person is not notable, then they do not deserve to be in this list. The references for them being porn actresses are in their aforementioned article, and it's redundant to have to require a ref just to list every single person. We are not a bureaucracy here. It is not a BLP violation to call a duck a duck. These people participated in pornography and then went on to other movies and films,a nd that's exactly what this article is attempting to portray. Please, someone from the other side, explain your viewpoint. Additionally, what person is being called a porn actor without them being one? In their articles, the lead elaboratively demonstrates that, and I have yet to come across one that doesn't. What person is not a porn actor but is on this list?Tutelary (talk) 03:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP policy, references are required. This is not open to negotiation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Tutelary, you are entitled to remove the PROD and I have restored that part of your edit. You most certainly do need sources for this article, where in the BLP policy can you back up your assertion that having an article is a substitute for a ref. It doesnt say so in the bit about lists or the bit about verifiability. Please familiarize yourself with the policy. What is required is for these people to have reliable sources, the info remains in the history and it is just a matter of doing it this way round. Until we have the rleiable sources we cannot guarantee that these people work in the porn industry, that is why BLP requires reliable source and to say it doesnt apply to people working in porn is not a mainstream view on wikipedia, nor is it BLP policy. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 03:16, 3 August 2014 (UTC).

OK, what if I took references that demonstrated each person was a porn actor/actress--and painstakingly apply each one to this article for each individual entry, even though they're in the sourced article, would you still have a problem with it? Additionally, why is the references being in the source article not enough, then? Tutelary (talk) 03:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. So yes, if anyone is included in the list, it needs proper referencing (for the person being a porn actor, and for them appearing in non-porn films), as with any other article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'm not talking about more people, I'm talking about it in present place. If each entry had at least one reference to being a porn actor, would the aforementioned list which you reverted once (and I reverted once) be put back since it would be properly referenced? Or is there another catch reason for it to not to be restored? I don't want to waste the effort only for it to be excluded due to some other reason. Tutelary (talk) 03:27, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

You would need a reference for the actor appearing in non-porn films too. Though thinking about it, I'm not sure that this list meets Wikipedia notability requirements. What exactly is notable about porn actors doing non-porn work anyway? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Andy, a list like this is important with regard to WP:PORNBIO. The requirements for notability have been reduced so significantly (making it more difficult to maintain or keep articles), that attacking an article like this could be perceived as an attempt to undermine the entire Pornography WikiProject regardless of the guise that's used to justify it. Plus, its not the only article that Squeak has been blanking. With regard to citing lists of names, this seems to be the most relevant discussion Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Stand-alone_lists#Lists_of_names. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 15:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not the slightest bit interested in whether you think anyone is trying to undermine anything - the list clearly and unambiguously violates basic WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Scalhotrod, making porn articles BLP compliant is, far from undermining the whole wikiepdia Porn project, an attempt to strengthen it by making all porn alrticles BLP compliant. This not only defends the workers in the industry but it makes our coverage of porn as a general enccycloepdia much les open to criticism. I cannot get my head around why you would think my attempts at BLP enforcement are an attempt to undermine our porn coverage here. Making a subkject area more excellent in quality, whatever that subject area, is not undermining that subjecty area but improving it. How is havingBLP non compliant material in articles helping our coverage of pornography? How is it respecting those who work in the industry? How is it not original reseach when editors get to decide who is included here based entirely on their own judgement and without a requirement to reliably source any inclusion? And why dies BLP not matter when people included are still alive? ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Andy, I was just replying to your comment/question regarding the nature of the list. Furthermore, I'm not saying that it requires no references, I (and others) are questioning Squeaks methods and tactics in his staunch quest for full BLP compliance. You know all too well that there are "easy, cooperative, and well meaning methods" for accomplishing things on this site and then are methods that are not. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 16:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• In general, lists of bluelinks, in which the relevant articles source the claims and justify their inclusion, do not require additional inline references (or are you arguing that from today I am authorized to boldly blank List of business theorists, List of Italian actresses and the 90/95% of lists of people in WP, which are wholly/mainly unsourced?) Per WP:BLP#Categories.2C_lists_and_navigation_templates and per our common practice, backed by dozens of talk page and AFD discussions, the appropriateness of a blue-link entry must be made clear by the article text and ITS reliable sources. About the specific case, first, adult actors acting in mainstream films clearly are NOT blp-compliance-worthy contentious material (at best the opposite would be), and therefore do not require immediate removal. Second, most of the film-articles already list (and source) the actors in the relevant casts, often in main roles; if you doubt an actor does not appear in a given film, just add a "cn" tag next to the title, and in a few days it will be surely sourced. About notability, this list clearly passes the WP:Notability#Stand-alone_lists test (eg., found in five minutes, CNBC, BBC, Yahoo Movies, Backstage Magazine, CNN, Las Vegas Sun). Cavarrone 11:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • This seems like your opinion and not anything substantiated by our BLP policy which does not confirm what you are saying. Your claim that porn acting is not a contentious field will have to remain your opinion. If the name is not sourced and the person is living the name cannot be here, there can be no discussion on this point. We need sourcing here, sourcing in other articles is not adequate for this list, if you want to change the BLP policy on lists you need to focus on that but not here. Cn tags are not an adeqaute response fro BLP challenged material (which is all the names of living people which appeared in this article). Hoping that BLP non complaint material will be sourced in a few days is well below the standards we demand on wikipedia, it is either sourced now or it does not get mentioned int he article, there can be no compromise here♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 12:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Cavarrone that you have chosen to deliberately violate our BLP policy before even discussing is really bad, do not do so again. If you want to restore these names you must do so with refs, otherwise if you persist you will end being blocked for consistent BLP violations, as will anyone who persists in adding materiañl that has been challenged as BLP non compliant. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 12:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I LINKED WP:BLP#Categories.2C_lists_and_navigation_templates, ie our BLP policy. You are just being disruptive and your arguments are just laughable. Blatant fuss. Cavarrone 12:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

BLP states "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" End of, now please accept this and move on. Calling someone laughable and disruptive for enforcing BLP is uncivil but is not a defence against deliberate BLP violations when you have been warned that this material is not BLP compliant and must be removed. I am not the only editor saying this here either. There is no need to discuss removing BLP violating material but adding it does not confer the same privileges. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 13:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Calling BLP violations a blatant fuss is not how we deal with BLP violations here. That 2 experienced users are claiming the smae thing makes your blatant fuss and laughable comments nothing mroe than an obvious personal attack. That is not going to help you here. Dismissing other editors as a joke in order to try and disempower them is not the wikipeia way. Let us all remain calm and civil and remember the best way of dealing with this is to find the sources and add them. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 13:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I will add that the BLP violation is particularly serious in this article because a subject having an article neither references them for being porn stars nor does it reference them for being in mainstream films. Therefore the addition of ANY living person to this article without refs is a BLP violation♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 13:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

You are certainly NOT an experienced user, you are just an agenda-driven user (there is a whole stream of edits that prove it). An experienced user would had started an AFD discussion or a topic on BLP-noticeboard, instead of edit warring for having a blanked page kept blanked. However, for everyone interested: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:SqueakBox. Cavarrone 14:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Err, I have been here almost 10 yrs and have done more than 61,000 edits and I have been working on BLP issues since my interactions with a certain Mr Brandt back in the day. BLP demands the removal of non compliant material before disciussion, and that is what experienced users do. If I have an agenda it is BLP but that is a central wikiepdia policy. The reality is it can be hard for someone to get their name removed even if they want to from a list like this but that is because our watermark is reliable sources, if you break that watermark you break the encyclopedia. If my agenda is enforcing that watermark on porn lists then so be it, I am absolutely doing it for the good of the encyclopedia and motivated entirely by a desire to see all or almost all these names restored with cast iron reliable source. Experiewnced users understand and enforce policy in order to make a better encycloepdia while remaining civil. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 14:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I am thinking about nominating this list for deletion, as lacking notability

The list appears to be a non-notable intersection between 'actors who have appeared in pornographic films' and 'actors who have appeared in mainstream films' - though 'mainstream' is entirely undefined, and 'pornographic' is likewise a matter of interpretation. The list entirely fails to explain why an actor appearing in these two different genres is of any significance. We don't have a 'list of comedy film actors who have appeared in westerns', so why do we need this list? Where is the evidence from published reliable sources that this particular grouping is in any way noteworthy? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• I disagree but go ahead, please. At least this is a more reasonable approach than this silly blanking. --Cavarrone 16:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Rather than 'disagreeing', how about actually explaining why you disagree - are you saying that evidence for the notability of this grouping exists? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, read better, I already wrote why I disagree with your view (including links to published reliable sources) hours ago, in the section above. I am now frankly a bit tired of discussing this stuff again and again, and there is enough drama here, there is really no need of an useless "preventive AfD discussion" just to raise more fuss. If you want this article deleted, just go ahead. Stay sure I will comment and explain my point in the AFD discussion. --Cavarrone 16:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

It might help if you gave the excerpt from policy/guideline that you are using. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:N. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The evidence is in WP:PORNBIO in that its one of the requirements for an article: "Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media." --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 18:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, ...and what is the excerpt from WP:N that you would be basing your nomination on? --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

All of it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

@Scalhotrod - WP:PORNBIO isn't a published reliable source indicating notability of the subject. It is an internal Wikipedia guideline - one relating to the notability of the individual, not to this list. And this list says nothing about 'multiple times' or about the notability of the media. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

So which policy are you basing your requirement that in order for a List article to exist that it be based on a published reliable source? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 18:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:N. If the subject is notable, it will have received significant coverage in multiple published reliable sources. Where are these sources? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Why is the intersection of actors who appeared in porn and mainstream films notable? I still haven't read an answer to this original question. --Malerooster (talk) 02:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

References

I just finished adding references to each and every person on the list and also added this text for Editors at the top...

Editors:

If you add a name to this list, please include as an inline citation a link to their resume on IMDb.com. Assuming the role is listed there, this should be an adequate reference. If the role is not on IMDb, then please include an inline citation next to the Title of the Movie or TV show.

For resume (work history) information for performers and crew, IMDb.com is a paid staff edited, controlled, and fact-checked database.

Now I understand why at one point it was against policy to have citations in List articles, but it is what it is. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 19:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Those imdb sources are not reliable♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 19:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have had to revert - there is no way that IMDb can be acceptable as a source for such material. See Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites#IMDb, Wikipedia:RS/IMDB#IMDb, Wikipedia:Rs#Self-published sources (online and paper) and numerous discussions on WP:RSN. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Andy, while it's true we do not(and should not) use IMDB for biographical information, we can and do use it for work history and awards. Work history and awards information are sections that are updated and maintained by IMDB staff, whereas bio information can be user generated. Although much of the user generated bio info has also been reviewed and confirmed recently. Still, it should not be used for person life details. But for work history? Yes. Dave Dial (talk) 19:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Nope. We do not use self-published and other questionable sources for potentially controversial BLP-related material. And even if we did, we wouldn't when the source in question doesn't even back up the claim it is being cited for - from a quick sampling I've found at least two cases where IMDb was being misrepresented. Their page on Matthew Rush [1] does not say that he is a pornographic actor. And their page on Scott Schwartz [2] says that he "Worked as a manager for adult film actors" - it doesn't say that he was himself a pornographic actor. This is sloppy work, and provides yet more evidence that WP:BLP policy isn't being properly applied. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

First of all, IMDB has nothing to do with self-published. Secondly, you are linking to the bio pages, not the work history pages(1,2,). Two completely different sections. As I have noted. Perhaps we need another discussion at RSN, but this seems like a pretty simple distinction. Dave Dial (talk) 19:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• @SqueakBox - You seem to have bypassed 3RR by at least 4 reverts(I think I count 7 reverts for you the last 24 hours), relying on a BLP exemption is pretty flimsy. Especially when the referred content is true, and from a website that is known for have reliable material concerning entertainer work history. I suggest you stop using that justification. Dave Dial (talk) 19:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Dave Dial, relying on a BLP justification is not remotely flimsy given each one of my reverts has clearly cited BLP concerns and I am removeing offending materially as BLP demands that I dfo when it concers living people and is not sourced. Wikipedia does not block editors for removing BLP non compliant material from articles thouygh wikipedia does at times block editors who, in defiance of BLP, are the ones ADDING BLP non compliant material. And how do YOU know all the material I have removed is "true" without reliable sources to verify that truth. Any wikiepdia actually says verifiability not truth so whether your opinion is that what was here is true or not is not relevant, what is relevant is reliable sources verifying what is int he article. I cant believe ypou expect us to take your word for verifiability rather than using reliable sources. And why would I stop citing BLP w

IMDB is not even remotely a reliable source - and it didn't support the assertions made in some cases, as I have noted above. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, so some are ignorant as to how IMDb operates and that it has distinct sections to it, fair enough. Lots of people claim that IMDb is user generated, which is true for the forums and trivia sections, but that is not what is being sourced. What's being referenced is the resume material and work histories of these performers. Just remember that you're now challenging the predominant source for cast and crew citations on Wikipedia, 10s of 1000s of citations are based upon this same source. If you think this only affect porn articles, you're way off. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 19:57, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

No, what I'm challenging is the use of a source explicitly named in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources as " largely not acceptable" as a source for contentious assertions regarding living persons. And incidentally, a source being cited for things it didn't say... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists#Citing sources

It has just been brought to my attention that Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists#Citing sources explicitly states that lists should be "sourced where they appear", and that they "must provide inline citations if they contain any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations" - contentious BLP material of course being one of the 'four kinds'. I think that this should clear any lingering doubt as to whether sourcing is required. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Why is working in Porn contentious?

Since its crossed multiple threads, I'll ask it separately. Why is working in porn contentious? And for anyone thinking of making a snide or snarky reply, try to think about the amount of discussions about civility that have been going on site wide lately. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 20:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

A simple question. Could wrongly describing someone as a pornographic actor be contentious? Would you be surprised if someone who was wrongly described as a pornographic actor decided to take the matter to court? I think the answer is self-evident - and since we don't want to get things wrong, we are required to provide the evidence (on the page where the assertion is made) that we are right. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Over what, it being on the site for maybe a few minutes, if that? You're speaking of hypothetical situations that are either so obscure that they are meaningless or the chances of it happening in any kind of significant way (as you're indicating it could) are ridiculously slim. No judge or attorney for that matter would take a case like that seriously. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 21:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

You asked a question. I answered it. Trying to make out that you asked another question entirely just so you can argue against me isn't exactly convincing. Though it might well be considered 'snide' or 'snarky'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Convince? LOL? Andy, I have no delusions of convincing you of anything... As I've said in the past, I thoroughly enjoy interaction with you and watching you conduct yourself with others. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 21:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Because it involves sex and it also involves sex work. Porn is a contentious issue in real life, hence many politicans restrict its access to minors etc. If being a porn star is not contentious essentially almost nothing is contentious, a good excuse to then sidestep our BLP policy in almost every are of life but not a credible interpretation of BLP if we are serious of protecting the BLP rights of people such as sex workers. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

If you had the power, would you remove all articles related to porn from Wikipedia? --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Squeak, so you're saying that anything involving sex is contentious? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 21:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

@Scalhotrod, we got it. You don't think there is anything contentious with being in the porn business. This thread asked a question, and I am sorry if you don't like the replies you are getting. I have no problem with porn and actually have lots of large cocks around my place, birds that is, but guess what, ALOT of other people have a HUGE problem with the porn industry and would find absolutely contentious to be labeled as involved in such. Who is "right"? I would default on the side of caution and respect that if you want to put somebody on this list, it best be properly sourced. Not really asking too much, is it?--Malerooster (talk) 02:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey Roost, sarcasm just doesn't translate well here, but I understood that Squeak and 1 or 2 others weren't getting it. Plus I understand that not everyone is comfortable with Adult subjects, but Squeaks policy interpretation has been fairly debunked over and over again today. We can't have roosters in my town, but I have a nice flock of Rhode Island Reds with few Bantams. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 03:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Greetings, Here's the last version of the full list before it was deleted [3]. If you click on any of the names in the list you will see that they are already identified as porn actors in articles about them in Wikipedia. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I know I asked above, but I'll ask again here. Why is the intersection of porn movies and mainstream movies notable? --Malerooster (talk) 12:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:PORNBIO, item #3. I'm not sure who came up with this, but its been an important factor in a variety of article discussions and expansions. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@Scalhotrod, I know that porn stars are notable and there should be a list of them as well, no problem. Somebody gave the example earlier of why not have a list of actors who have been in Western films and comedy films or the like. Why is this intersection notable. I see some attempt below at addressing the intersection, thanks, --Malerooster (talk) 22:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

What is the definition of "mainstream films"

And does the person need to have been in more than one per the article title? I see this was discussed a little above about being in TV movies, ect. Maybe the article title needs to be changed. Thanks --Malerooster (talk) 02:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Well... It's not porn film and also probably not an independent film, or home made film, or YouTube video unless its so successful that it gets picked up with a studio or gone viral. There are a lot of films that will never be considered for any award and are fairly obscure, but would still be considered "mainstream". Make sense? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 03:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

So its subjective? --Malerooster (talk) 12:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)ps, do you believe the intersection of porn and mainstream movies is notable? If so, why? Thanks, --Malerooster (talk) 12:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

In some respects, yes. Obviously there are productions that are "clearly mainstream" like summer blockbusters and then there are others that are less so and it becomes more a matter of personal interpretation. Cult classic to one person, might be mainstream to another, at some point it becomes relative. Where that is, I have no idea. As for the notability of the intersection of porn and mainstream moves, I believe so, yes. In fact I have been collecting references to write an article titled "Mainstreaming of Pornography in the United States". Its been a subject in the mainstream press that the U.S. public is becoming less sensitized to pornography. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing

• The article currently has a notice to avoid editing due undergoing a major edit. I am happy to assist in adding reliable sources to proposed entries, and I volunteer to review 10. I see about 140 proposed entries on the last non-blanked version, so with a few more editors sourcing instead of talking, we can knock it out in no time at all. Someone who is active here assign me a range when editing is open again.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I would wait to see how the AFD goes. No need to do all that work if the article gets deleted. If the article does not get deleted, this would be an excellent suggestion and much appreciated, thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 17:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

@Milowent: - Yes please help out. No reason to wait, improvements now will help the article from being deleted. -- GreenC 19:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

@Green Cardamom, the argument for deletion has nothing to do with sourcing, it was more a question of the notability of the intersection the list is based on. --Malerooster (talk) 19:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• This article is over 10 years old, I would be quite surprised if it is deleted, as the subject is no doubt notable. I mean, this NY Times article talked about it 15 years ago [4], and its only gotten more prominent since then.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The AFD seems pretty tilted towards keep. --Malerooster (talk) 19:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

edit warring nonsense

Is there one person on the list that doesn't have an article that says they were in pornographic films as well as mainstream films? There is no BLP issue here. Kindly stop erasing content. I've added some additional references to some. Dream Focus 18:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Dream: in case you haven't seen, Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Unreferenced_lists_and_porn_stars_RFC.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

How would one know, there were no citations provided? Using a blue link as source is what this whole bruha ha is/was about it seems. Just provide citations and end this. --Malerooster (talk) 19:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

You can click the link to their article just as easily as you can click on a reference link. I added some, but really now, there is no reason to waste time going through every single entry. The information is in their main article, the film articles they are in, and in the credits of those films. This article is over 10 years old. Has there ever been a problem before? Other than obvious vandals you find in any article, which are easily spotted and removed? Anyone could add in a reference to a reliable source, knowing no one is likely to click on the link there and read what the news article referenced really says, it could easily be about something unrelated. Dream Focus 20:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Um, how can people see references in a red-linked article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

All the names are in blue, so the fact that a small number of film articles are red, is not a problem. Their films will be listed in the articles for the actors. Dream Focus 20:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Nope. Even where the films are mentioned, they often aren't referenced. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

In articles for big Hollywood films they don't have references to most people listed in the cast, even major characters seen throughout the film. Articles for mainstream actors don't have references for every film they are listed as being in. You just trust the primary source for that sort of thing, they listed in the credits. Dream Focus 21:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Um, no. We don't 'trust' sources, we cite them. For things they actually say. Which we find out by reading them. And then adding them to the references. Isn't that what the Article Rescue Squad is supposed to do? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

That's what everyone does, Andy. Start watching some porn, Wikipedia needs you.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Jurassic Park (film) doesn't have references for any of the cast! The staring actor doesn't have it referenced in his article either. In fact, he doesn't have references to any of the films he is said to have been in Sam_Neill#Filmography. Primary sources are fine for films. Always have been, always will be. Dream Focus 22:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Primary sources might sometimes be acceptable. A complete lack of sources isn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

None of the articles of actors and actresses linked from the list are without sources.Diego (talk) 22:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Some of the actors named are without sources that actually say what the sources are supposedly being cited for... AndyTheGrump (talk)

format

Shouldn't the names be formatted last name first? I wouldn't be shocked if there's some precedent for this in porn articles (average reader: "I know Stormy, I didn't know her last name was Daniels."), but I figured I should ask. Perhaps also a column listing the year of the actor's first significant non-porn film appearance, to allow for re-ordering by date?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:21, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I thought the same thing. --Malerooster (talk) 00:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

One problem is that there are a lot of porn stars that initially go by one name and sometimes add a "last name" convert to a full name later on; i.e. Stormy becoming Stormy Daniels or Mercedez becoming Nina Mercedez. There is also some precedent with regard to websites that list these performers. For example, Freeones.com organizes names by first name. Its not readily apparent, you have to look at the URLs. Nina Hartley's profile can be found at http://www.freeones.com/html/n_links/Nina_Hartley/. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Change article title to List of pornographic actors who appeared in non-porn films

Can the title be changed to match the criteria? --Malerooster (talk) 00:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Might also consider List of pornography crossover actors as more accurate and concise. -- GreenC 01:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

• (Weakly) oppose to the first proposal (pornographic actors who appeared in non-porn films), basically because most of the RS use the word mainstream... 10 Porn Stars Who Went Mainstream, Talented or tainted: Can a porn star go mainstream?, Porn Stars Go Mainstream While Hollywood Goes Porn, Porn Goes Mainstream, James Deen, other porn stars who've gone mainstream, As porn and pop culture merge, mainstream still difficult, The veteran of thousands of porn films, James Deen has made a foray into mainstream cinema, EXCLUSIVE: Interview With Porn Star Turned Mainstream Actor, James Deen, Sasha Grey: From Porn Star to Mainstream Actress to School Reader, Porn meets mainstream in elusive crossovers, Want to be a successful mainstream actress: Sunny Leone and many more. At any rate a redirect should certainly be created.

Disagree with the second proposal (List of pornography crossover actors) as it would affect the content of the list: there are pornography actors who "crossover" the line in different ways than appearing in non-porn films, eg. working as stage actors, television actors, screenwriters, comic book artists, dancers, singers or appearing in reality shows, music videos, commercials... Creating a parent article, of which this one would be a split-article, however would be an axcellent idea. Cavarrone 08:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

List of pornography crossover film actors -- GreenC 13:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support change, but I'm not sure to what - If for no other reason than to shorten the name, I'm in favor of this, but we need to be careful about the exact wording. Mainstream seems to have a generally accepted definition, but "mainstream film/videos" does not. As for "crossover", the Adult industry seems to be clear on what it means, but will it be understood by the average Reader. For example, in the recording industry someone is labeled "crossover" if a song they record becomes popular in a different genre like from Country music to Pop music. That said, I like Cavarrone's idea. @Green Cardamom, thank you for that great list of references. This will help me an article I'm working on greatly! --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
• Be careful. Discovered now after a little search, but "crossover actor" in pornography is apparently related not just to actors who go mainstream but also to bisexual male performers who star both in gay and heterosexual productions (eg see [5], [6], [7], [8]). Cavarrone 17:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah! Good catch, maybe we just need an explicitely clear statement at the top of the page along with editor instructions using <<!-- text -->>. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

• I would support a change from mainstream (don't know what either). I've noticed that in referencing some of those red link movies that they are just "direct to video", does that count as mainstream. I've also noticed that some of their parts are buried in the "full cast and crew" because their appearance was so minimal (dead person), is a camera panning across a dead person laying on the ground a notable appearance. I am no expert in this genre, but if an adult film aficionado were to see this movie, would they think it's notable. I would also support maybe a short summarized lead with content culled from the RS above as being appropriate, thoughts? Isaidnoway (talk) 17:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Granted, some of the "roles" are little more than being an extra. One of the things that I look for is if the role is listed as "uncredited" which is a great indication of just how significant (or insignificant) the part is. So if a role is "uncredited" chances are no one is getting their union card for it any time soon. And since things like a persons SAG/AFTRA (actors union) standing and work history are based on screen credits, its a good measuring stick factor. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking along the same lines, as in an adult film star being able to use that "credit" on their resume to enhance their chances at other non-porn films. I would also note that a lot of my searches are returning results from youtube where the entire movie has been uploaded, another good indicator of notability I would think. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Questionable use of IMDB

I wish to draw involved editors attention to the fact that IMDB is strongly discouraged for citing contentious claims. Please see Wikipedia:Citing IMDb Wikipedia:RS/IMDB#IMDb. As there is controversy over properly citing entries for actors/actresses in this list, using a disputed source may not resolve the situation. I browsed a few articles on each actors/actresses, and most have a more credible source available that might be better here. --Zfish118 (talk) 18:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Yup - and note the IMDb is expressly named in WP:RS as a questionable source. Any article on a living person that doesn't have a more reliable source than IMDb for the assertion that the subject is a pornographic actor is quite likely a WP:BLP violation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the article is currently 'citing' IMDb for assertions it does not make. As I pointed out some time ago, even a brief scan of a few entries found examples where IMDb does not state that the individual concerned is a pornographic actor - take a look at the IMDb entries for Matthew Rush [9], which says nothing about pornography, and Scott Schwartz [10], which states that he "Worked as a manager for adult film actors", but says nothing about him appearing in pornography himself. Even if IMDb were acceptable as a source, it could not be cited for things it doesn't say. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

• I fully agree that we need additional sources beyond IMDB, that is what a number of editors are working on. Please pick out a few and help out! I believe an early editor mass added IMDB links in response to normal Wikipedia drama.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I have been working on the red link movies providing references for them and will take a look-see to improving the other refs, if someone else doesn't tackle it first. I think it's also important to remember that this article is several years old and the rehabilitation effort in providing refs may take some time, so be patient and WP:AGF - and a little collaborative effort would be welcome too. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Another potential source is AVN. For example, I googled Chasey Lain AVN and the second result in the list was http://www.avn.com/porn-stars/Chasey-Lain-248526.html . --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Excellent examples Andy! Of course picked 2 of the more problematic entries on the list which are not indicative of the whole list. And kudos for likely reviewing the whole list so you could cherry pick those examples... :) By the way way, IMDb is not used to cite that they are porn actors, its just used to cite that they appeared in the listed productions.

Schartz is anomaly because he started mainstream, then switched to adult as stated and referenced by, "Schwartz would eventually star in adult films in sexual roles.", and then went back to mainstream acting. Unlike for example, Tasha Reign, who started out mainstream and then went Adult full time as referenced in her article. As for IMDb stating that he's worked in porn movies, they have their own coding system. So if there's an "X" in the header of the production such as for "Scotty's X-Rated Adventure" [11], its "adult". There are other references that state (see above) that he did actually sex scenes.

Matthew Rush is just your basic gay porn actor that has managed to crossover. I think his award speak for themselves, but the fact that he had contract with a gay focused production company is fairly unambiguous as well, "Rush was under a lifetime exclusive pornographic career contract with Falcon Studios that ended in 2009 in order to pursue other projects in the pornographic industry. His first post-Falcon project was a pornographic video and photo shoot with photographer Jon Royce on January 22, 2009."

By the way, when you cite IMDB you need to cite their work history, its the main page of their profile so [12] and [13] respectively for Schwartz and Rush.. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I added refs for those two when I saw that Andy had posted them, here in this diff: [14] I don't mind people pointing out problematic sourcing or issues, but I do think there is a good faith effort here to bring this article in compliance with all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. So...as this is a mass undertaking, it may take several days, so a little patience and collaborative effort would be greatly appreciated by all those working here to improve the encyclopedia. Thanks.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 22:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

"By the way way, IMDb is not used to cite that they are porn actors, its just used to cite that they appeared in the listed productions." The contention would seem to be primarily the appearance of actors on the "list of porn stars..." portion and on the "that appeared in mainstream films". The appearance in the films is a secondary concern, and not particularly contentious. That actors/actress also appeared in porn is primary contentious issue that isn't well sourced. Full page blanking is perhaps no longer needed if the majority are at least poorly sourced from IMDB.

Further Note: criticizing AndyTheGrump for "cherry picking", even if it possibly required more effort than just adding sources, makes this unnecessarily personal. --Zfish118 (talk) 00:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• What is the more appropriate acronym for my reaction to this thread? "OMG!" or "WTF?" Sourcing these folks with IMDb is just wrong. Each name sourced solely by IMDb should be removed immediately in accordance with BLP policies. – S. Rich (talk) 06:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

  I agree that IMDB is a weak source, but in a different sense: I believe it's reliable enough and well accepted on Wikipedia as a source that a particular actor appeared in a particular film production but I don't think that fact, sourced or not, is sufficient to call someone a porn star. In any event, I have reverted your removal of the sources because I don't think it sorts anything out. If the objective is to make sure that everyone in this list is duly sourced to being a porn star we should demand a reference to a reliable source in each instance that the person is a porn star, not a reference to IMDB or anywhere else that they have appeared in a porn production. If not, the entire entry should be deleted, not just the IMDB link. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The "contentious material" that is referred to by WP:BLP is contentious because someone believes it may not be true. There doesn't seem to be any contention about the material being true in the case of the subject actors being in porn films because that assertion is sourced in the individual articles about the actors. So WP:BLP doesn't apply here. --Bob K31416 (talk) 08:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

And your evidence that these sources actually exist in the individual articles? You havent verified your statement and I see no reason why I should have to believe you, our standard of verifiability is reliable sources and not the words of editors making unsubstantiated claims,and I am not willing to believe some contentious statement is true based on the word of an editor. So what I am saying is if you have checked EVERY article and confirmed they contain reliable sources that merely verifies this fopr you, not for anyone else. And when you were checking the reliable sources why did you not just add them to this list. It wouldnt have taken much longer than the checking and would have meant nobody else had to check. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 16:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

SqueakBox, I stand by my previous comment and FYI, I have been adding references to the article, along with editors other than you. Perhaps in the future, you might consider adding refs to articles instead of deleting. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

SqueakBox, why aren't you adding sources to these articles you are troubled by? If you think being a deletion editor is actually fixing the problem you are sadly wrong. Adult content like this always returns, I've seen it time and time again - deleted BLPs creep back, deleted entries on lists come back, because no one editor can keep track of it. Wikipedia is a speeding freight train of growing information and although I find this personally problematic, that is reality. When we source lists like this, we weed out any problems, and make it easier to spot bad additions. This list is not going to be deleted. If you turn on your virus protection and source a few, you will improve the project.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

As it happens I have done so in some cases. WP:BURDEN makes it clear this is not my responsibility and I would rather be removinmg further BLP non-compliant material though I also have issues with editors creating drama to try to avoid THEIR obligations under BLP through discussion, and that has taken up a huge amont of my time. Its a job I would like to do becuase hten I could check the BLP compliance of the bios at the same time. And I dont want this list deleted, I want it BLP compliant, and that is happening, you should be thanking me. I trust you arent implying that BLP enforrcement ISNT improving the encyclopedia, it is, not least by looking after the living subjects we write about, failure to look after these ppl and their rights is about the worst thing we can do while improving the encyclopedia. So coming to me with a moral high tone isnt going to impress me, BLP enforcement is exactlñy the samae kind of tedious work as adding reliable sources and just as useful at bettering the encyclopedia. If I had not done what I did in 2015 the list would have remained unsourced let alone right now. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs16:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I am glad to hear you have done it in some cases, for that I truly thank you. This isn't about WP:BURDEN, though. It is a moral burden. This list is only being sourced because editors like myself, who have sourced over 60,000 BLPs since 2010 without even knowing of your existence, are doing it. I find your approach to "improvement" loathsome, a violation of WP:CIVIL that is the most insidious around here. BTW, while sourcing will improve the list, have we found any slanders in it yet? Because that's what I might be fixing otherwise; actual slanders on actual articles.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• This thread (e.g., IMBd as a source) is being discussed at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#IMDB as a source - query. – S. Rich (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
• The remainder of the IMDb refs have been removed, now we can see those that are unreferenced and go from there, looks like about a dozen or so still need refs. Thanks.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Why remove them completely? They still provide a source for the person's mainstream appearances, all of them in one place I might add. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I removed them to squash any doubt whatsoever from the naysayers that they were being used to source their being a porn star. I agree they provided some good info, but if editor's are not even going to bother to click through a blue link to verify the authenticity of someone being on the list, they sure as hell ain't going to click on a IMDb link.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 20:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, OK, I can't really disagree with or fault that kind of logic. As much as I'd like for the refs to stay, I understand your motive. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• As an active member of the Film Project, the use of IMDB is fine in 99.99% of cases for basic info regarding who directed a film and who was in the cast. Cast lists are mainly sourced by someone watching the credits of the film in question. The essay Wikipedia:Citing IMDb is really about citing trivia on IMDB film articles/biographies in WP articles. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

___________________

Sourcing complete

• Barring any oversights, every entry on this list article now has in-line reference cites without using IMDB. Congrats to all who helped improve Wikipedia by their contributions.
• Did anyone find any entries of someone who was not a porn star, or who had no claim whatsoever to a mainstream role (albeit sometimes small roles)? I did not find any, and this is not surprising. In 2010-11, Wikipedia:Unreferenced BLP Rescue referenced well over 20,000 BLPs that had no references. We did find a few hoaxes and errors, but they were very few. Having references can help guard against BLP violations, but it is not a substitute for watchlisting and critical reading.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

It would also be useful to know how much collective time the community spent documenting the presence of zero errors here in case there is a cost / benefit analysis to do with respect to a similar effort to source all of the people list on Wikipedia. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

@Wikidemon, again, this should only be for contentious(sp) lists, even though people still dispute whether being labeled a porn actor is contentious. --Malerooster (talk) 17:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, a big shout out and huge thank you to everyone who participated in this mass undertaking. Of all the names that I referenced, every single one of them was indeed an adult film actor, and yes, I actually did verify that the source said the same. I was actually surprised at the amount of crossover work that many of them are doing, not just in film, but TV, radio, online, cable, music, writing and many other projects. Who knew?-- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The time I spent was much more than I cared to spend on something that wasn't needed, on a subject that I wasn't interested in. Isaidnoway was so good in all of this that I decided to help. This situation first came to my attention when I read a message on Jimbo's talk page from an editor who was very discouraged about Wikipedia because this article was summarily blanked. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

See, it is possible. And it could have been done without any complaining. Well done, people! Bob K31416, your claim that this wasnt needed, though, implies that the living people we talk about dont matter and that is not an acceptable to bring when editing any wikipedia article which mention living people. The article was not blanked, it was made BLP compliant, you also need to understand the difference between the two before making rash claims. And if anon users are discouraged because we put the BLP needs of our subjects before the needs of pour editors, so be it, he or she could always create a fork to a porn wiki which does not require reliable sources. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The lead

I boldly put a summary lead in based on the sourcing provided above. I also randomly selected Grey's image as she was mentioned in the lead. I was going to add another column to the table with maybe a few poster images of some of the movies, but I didn't, didn't know if they were wanted or needed, same for the lead.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 02:06, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• Good move. Having an introduction explaining why the list exists is a good idea. Adding a column for pictures of the actors (where one exists) would probably be appreciated by readers Adding poster images of movies may raise copyright concerns, as the content here addresses the actors without any discussion of the films listed which may be needed for the non-free use rationale.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Removals

Some entries are now being removed by Hullabaloo, a good editor though with a long term dislike of this type of content. Well, I mean porn content, not necessarily porn actors appearing in mainstream films as being objectionable. He correctly removed Pandora Peaks as she was not a pornographic actor, just a nude model. Please consider reviewing his removals to see if they can be re-added.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I "dislike" content that violates BLP requirements, and each removal here fails those standards. The innuendo is groundless. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Come on, man, I've seen you on too many nudie articles advocating for merger/deletion, etc., to not know its an area of interest for you. The removals will stand or fall on their own merit, e.g., I agree with your removal of Pandora Peaks.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I recall Ms. Peaks (how could one forget), and yes I did have a difficult time finding a reliable source to establish her notability. But as I recall, there were plenty of unreliable sources (XXX) to establish she was indeed an adult film actor. I almost removed her when I was sourcing, but I didn't, and I don't have an objection now to her being removed.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 20:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing failures

Press releases and presskit pieces fail RS standards, particularly for BLP content. Just because someone may have shot a scene as an extra, background player, or even a one-line role doesn't mean the scene appears in the film as released, or that their performance is included even if the scene is. If a role isn't billed or properly credited, an independent, third-party source is generally required -- and porn industry press typically doesn't cut it on this point. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• Let's step back a second. The contentious part of this article is that it lists porn stars, not porn stars who appeared in non-porn films. You can't just reject Adult Video News as a source for coverage of porn actors; you're engaging in speculation to say these people didn't actually show up in the films that sources say they did. If we can't rely on IMDB at all as others argue, do you wish us to watch the credits to the films?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:59, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I should also note this article had no sources a few days ago. What it needs is you both verifying and looking for sources. Turn on your antivirus.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• • No. Both elements of the list require proper sourcing to meet RS/BLP requirements. This is a supposedly uncredited role, so the credits can't support the claim. One of the two AVN sources can't possibly be reliable, since it predates the release of the film and can't verify whether a brief minor performance made the final cut. The second is a superficial press release, and isn't an RS for anything more than the performers were scheduled for a promotional appearance. As for the reliability of porn industry sources generally, note a current flagrant example of unreliability the case of Lupe Fuentes, whose standard porn industry bio described her as a successful teenage fashion model, but whose newer music industry bio describes her as a one-time homeless high school student withoiut a modeling career. Nothing "speculative" about requiring genuinely reliable sources in a field where hype and dubious claims abound. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Considering that this article is several years old, as you well know, yes, it is in need of some improvement and updating and sourcing. But the initial concern was that it was contentious to assert someone was a porn actor without providing RS. So, this is what we tackled first to address those concerns. Are there notability issues with some of the entries you describe, yes, there probably is. But, speaking for myself who tirelessy worked on this article for 2 days straight, I took a small break to get my hair cut and some other irl stuff. So, is there some time limit that has been imposed upon us to update the rest of the article, or do you think we could have a little time to address the remaining issues. If there is a issue with notability or sourcing, please bring it to the talk page, so we can fix it or remove it. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment - Keep in mind that Wolf is in the U.K. and is impeded by their national ISP filters that affect, among other things, anything porn related. So he literally may not be able to view the same sources that others contributing to this article can. Plus judging from his edit summaries, he seems to rely greatly on his personal knowledge and opinion of porn in deciding what is worthwhile information or not. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Scalhotrod seems to have 1) made this up out of whole cloth, something he's done before, and 2) seems to e making a clumsy effort at WP:OUTING. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of "worthwhile information", since we are updating and improving the article, is it worth updating the criteria for inclusion on the list or just bring any questionable content to the talk page, which is what I would prefer, rather than another mass blanking.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 20:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Tawny Roberts

• This is one of the ones getting deleted: |Tawny Roberts. For appearance in Shade (2003): Ref 1: Blonde Beauty Tawny Roberts Becomes Newest Vivid Girl, Adult Video News; ref 2: (20 July 2004). Vivid Girls to Introduce New Book at Virgin Megastore, Adult Video News. She appears on her IMDB bio [15] as "Dancer in Club (uncredited)". Now, this is not contentious - a porn actress appearing in a legitimate movie is a BLP positive imho. Suggesting a porn star has never been in a mainstream movie if they have could be seen as a slight to them. But we want to be right. Is this appearance sufficient to be on the list?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
  • She doesn't have a credited role in the film. Your Ref 1 obviously fails, since it predates release of the film (lots of bit parts are shot but don't make the final cut.) Ref 2 is based on a press release. If she actually appears in the film, there should be genuinely reliable sources that say so, not just PR. And, per BLP, "contentious" applies to positive, negative, and neutral content. Performers can't buff up their resumes by listing credits they don't actually have. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
  • And now another editor has added a self-published book from an individual with no reputation for reliability (but who does acknowledge that his book is just a compilation of IMDB data plus stuff his friends told him.[16] It's hard to see this as anything but blithering idiocy, but common sense and rationality go out the window when it comes to including porncruft on Wikipedia! The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• Here is a still shot of Ms. Roberts appearing with Tabitha Stevens in Shade. NSFW.[17]. I think its fine to note "uncredited role" in her entry on the list to flag its a limited appearance.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• Except, of course that neither of those performers appears in the screenshot, that several online sources identify the actress you say is Roberts as one Erika Nann, and a video clip of the scene depicted is easy enough to find online, and my no stretch of the imagination would either of the women you purport to identify be described as "Dancer in Club". The underlying source for this claim is a user posting to IMDB that's never been verified. nothing added here comes close to verifying it, either. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Welll you just proved you have no internet filter :-). i couldn't find the clip, so if those boobs are nann's i defer to you.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

• AVN can be used to source that she is indeed an adult film actor, but if there is no mention in that reference that she made an appearance in a mainstream film, we can use a source at the movie in the article. As far as credited or uncredited is concerned, I think that is a legitimate question in relation to the criteria we should be using. I noticed that when I first started referencing the red link movies, I had a difficult time finding the credits for that person. So maybe, in order to avoid issues like this and any further edit warring over this already highly visible article, maybe we could establish some sort of consensus for inclusion criteria. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• "In addition to starring in several adult films, Tawny has been featured in FHM, Playboy, Revolver and Arena magazines and had a role in the feature film, "Shade", starring Sylvester Stallone and Jamie Foxx." http://www.avn.com/porn-stars/Tawny-Roberts-274065.html

I found this by googling Tawny Roberts AVN. Info for other actors might be found this way too. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Bob for bringing a reference to help improve the article. I went ahead and changed her inline citation beside her name to establish her part in this movie. Isaidnoway (talk) 05:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear God, does no one here understand what a reliable source is. Even Wikiproject Pornography says that such AVN pages shouldn't be used, saying "their porn star profiles are often copied from other sites and cannot be treated as reliable". As I recall, there was an AFD discussion a while back where a phony AVN award claim turned up in an AVN profile. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

• Proposal Considering the fact that this article started this whole BLP debate, was nominated for AfD and there are numerous discussions taking place about these sort of articles and lists, and considering the fact that this article is heavily referenced to AVN - I propose we nip this in the bud and open a RfC on this talk page, or in the alternative - we open a discussion over at RSN (my preference) for wider community input on this particular source being used for articles/lists of this nature. I would also like to propose that since this article is currently in a relatively stable condition, that we not edit war over this or blank the article again, until there is a consensus reached on the reliability of this particular source. Thoughts? Isaidnoway (talk) 19:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

So we have a long-standing consensus, supported by practice and by the relevant wikiproject, that a particular source -- AVN profile pages -- is unreliable. And without a shred of evidence to the contrary, you want to open an RFC on changing that? What part of WP:RS do you not understand? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I will take your comment as to mean that you have already made your determination on this particular reference being used. Thanks for your input. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

For reference, here's the comment at Wikiproject Pornography about AVN.[18]

• AVN.com [19] – A reliable source for adult industry news and movie reviews. However, their porn star profiles are often copied from other sites and cannot be treated as reliable. AVN also does not indicate when an article is a press release.

The part of the comment that was about porn star profiles was put in on 23 October, 2008 by User:Epbr123.[20]

The subject of reliable sources, which included discussion of AVN, occurred on the Wikiproject's talk page section Reliable sources from 20 October, 2008 to 21 November, 2008. I didn't see any discussion about the porn star profiles of AVN there. Here's the comments in that Wikiproject talk page discussion regarding the reliability of AVN.[21]

" some of them are clearly (IMO) reliable (e.g., AVN which I believe at least one mainstream source has called the trade magazine)" -- User:Tabercil

"AVN is reliable period since it's the leading industry trade magazine. The New York Times called it "the Variety of the US porn industry" " -- Tabercil

"First, from interacting with both staff, I would say XBIZ and by extension XFanz is more reliable than AVN. XBIZ clearly denotes whenever something is a press release and its own articles are not just mere fluff. I trust the writers there more than AVN. My problem with AVN, especially when it comes to notability issues, is that they write articles on and review movies from companies in which they take advertisement dollars from, which sometimes leads to COI and independence issues. I also view their staff as being less competent (prone to much more turnover) than XBIZ. Their awards are also subject to politics." -- User:Morbidthoughts

"With regards to Morbid's comments about AVN's conflict of interest, it's no different from any other commercial news organization." -- Tabercil

So it looks like Isaidnoway's proposal for an RfC on the matter is appropriate because the reliability of porn star profiles in AVN wasn't discussed when the item was put on the Wikiproject's page. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

• I'm in the process of opening up a discussion at RSN for community input, so we can see what the consensus is now in 2014. I will post the link here when I get it ready. Thanks guys. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion opened here at RSN: Profile Pages from AVN being used as a RS

I also copied and pasted the previous discussions listed above from User:Tabercil over to the RSN, hope you don't mind. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Did porn before or after mainstream, does it matter?

So if I understand this edit corrrectly, Wolfo is objecting to the inclusion of Jessie Capelli on this list because she had her mainstream appearances before she entered porn. My question is, Does it matter? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Of course it matters, and of course you know it matters. As was discussed in the recent AFD, the notable intersection justifying the list is "porn stars going mainstream", and every source cited in the discussion, and every example cited in that discussion, was of a performer who established notability as a porn performer, and subsequently was cast in mainstream films. Not of performers who attempted mainstream careers, never had more significant roles than "Naked Girl at Party" then turned to porn to pay the bills. That's not noteworthy. This isn't the first time I've removed on entry over issues like this, and it's been uncontroversial. There are more prominent examples of mainstream performers with count-them-on-one hand porn credits, and they've consistently been excluded from the list since it was initially created. Your editing would be more productive if "try to annoy Wolfowitz" weren't on your standing to-do list. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, we know what HW's thoughts are (and there may be restoration needed as a result), anyone else? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with HW, that the intersection behind this article is "porn stars going mainstream"--something frequently covered in the press. The article title is not 100% clear on this point however. If there is a basis for a separate article on "List of actors who appeared in mainstream films prior to doing porn", which there may be, we'd need to separately justify it.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I am unsure the order matters -- mainly the issues of:

1. The person is primarily known for appearing in porn films in credited roles.
2. The person has also appeared in mainstream films in credited roles.

Which, IMO, comprise the minimum elements needed for inclusion in such a list. "Uncredited roles" are notoriously difficult to source with a straight face (I mistrust most sites which do not use the actual credits from a film as a source), and may actually be unrelated to a person being a "porn star" of any sort in the first place. If a person fails either element, the person ought not be in such a list. Collect (talk) 22:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Table formatting -- Why the year column?

I was just searching for a film I couldn't remember the name of and tried sorting by year, only to find that the year column appears almost arbitrary. Since it isn't stated on the article, I guess that notes first debut? None of those entries have any citations either, so its contribution to the article seems dubious.

Perhaps this article could be split, this being simply a list of names and the tabling moved to "List of mainstream films starring pornographic actors" or something to that effect. Bawb131 (talk) 16:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of pornographic actors who appeared in mainstream films. 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 http://avn.com/video/articles/2759.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141027225917/http://business.avn.com/articles/video/i-Hot-Video-i-Announces-Hot-d-Or-Awards-Nominees-Venue-355404.html to http://business.avn.com/articles/video/i-Hot-Video-i-Announces-Hot-d-Or-Awards-Nominees-Venue-355404.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of pornographic actors who appeared in mainstream films. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140808052920/http://business.avn.com/executive-suite/Candida-Royalle-CEO-Femme-Productions-66429.html to http://business.avn.com/executive-suite/Candida-Royalle-CEO-Femme-Productions-66429.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140407105749/http://adultfyi.com/read.php?ID=20862 to http://adultfyi.com/read.php?ID=20862

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)