Talk:Jenna Jameson/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Josie Maran rumor removed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Josie_Maran

the rumor was started here by someone misquoting the Stern show: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Josie_Maran&diff=16720720&oldid=15413260 "An avowed bisexual, Josie revealed on the Howard Stern show that despite having a long-time boyfriend she also enjoys sex with women, including adult movie actress Jenna Jameson."

Josie Maran and David Blained talked about her liking porn, and hooking up with other model/actresses on Howard Stern's show, but Jenna's name was never mentioned. There's never been a quote of Josie mentioning Jenna.

Video from the Stern show here: http://josiemaran-world.com/josie-maran.com/downloads/motion/JMhs4.wmv the rest of the show can be found here: http://josiemaran-world.com/josie-maran.com/motion.htm

the site which was cited by the Jenna Jameson wiki, http://www.allamericanspeakers.com/newspeakerbio/2457/index.php , just copy and pasted from the 21 September 2005 revision of the Josie Maran wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Josie_Maran&oldid=23667115, which contains the above error. Shiyan 20:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)shiyan

Jay Grdina husband or ex-husband?

just a little discrepancy, but i didnt change it cos i have no idea what the truth is. In the 'Personal Life' section it is implicit in the wording that jenna and jay are still 'happily married' at their 2million dollar ranch, but in the trivia section Jay is described as jenna's ex-husband, can someone who knows better than me fix this.

End of the section specifies that they separated in August 2006. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

missing something

uhm, she was sexually abused in montana (or wyoming? or something) at a young age and says thats one of the reasons she got into porn. she also said if she had kids she would quit porn.

this article is, basically, super-light, proving yet again that wikipedia is controlled by corporations and their PR flacks, not honesty and certainly not 'the people' who are more than likely to get banned for 'vandalism' merely for writing the truth.

the source for this information is a @#$@#$ documentary where she says it in her own @#$@#$ words. so dont give me this verifiable source bullshit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.185.250.195 (talk • contribs) 21:44, July 28, 2006 (UTC-6)

Haha...if you can "source" it and verify that source, then by all means add the information! not that hard...

What do we need to do to make this a Featured Article?

Per the question above, I would very much like people's input as to what we can do to get this article to Featured Article status (or damn well close to it). So if you have any suggestions, please feel free to fire away. Thank you. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 21:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Just an update: I'm starting a rewrite of the article on my username space. I will post a link when it is ready. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 00:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Feature Article checklist

I would like to get a straw poll going to see if people believe that this article is achieving the following criteria laid out at Wikipedia:What is a featured article? Therefore, after each question, please vote yes or no with supporting reasons as to why you've voted yes or no.

1. Is the article well written? (See: Wikipedia:Article development.)
   • No. While the article is decently written, the flow of the article needs a lot of work. The more recent additions, spanning from earlier this year to now, were added to the article without regard to how the entire article would be affected. (Imagine a stone garden, where each rock thrown into it ripples out and affects the other stones in the garden. It's the same effect that I see here.) Also, there seems to be a slight POV problem, which starts off from the lead paragraph that should be corrected immediately. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 22:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
   • Reviewers' call! I've rewritten, reorganized, and cited until citations are coming out of my ears. Calling for a peer review, let's see what other people think. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
2. Is the article comprehensive?
   • Yes. The artice is reasonably comprehensive, covering her early life to present events. This is no doubt thanks to her autobiography, which most porn stars do not have. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 22:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Is the article factually accurate with proper citations to verifiable and reliable sources?
   • No. There is some attempt at adding external links to sources and footnotes, but both are inconsistent and we do need to stick to one format. I would definitely recommend footnotes. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 22:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
   • Yes, as of August. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
4. Does the article have a neutral, encyclopedic tone?
   • Yes. For the most part, however there's a slight issue of tone which slams into the reader's face in the lead paragraph, particularly "she is one of the most famous female porn stars in the world". While Jenna Jameson is a popular star, some of the things said here seem to be near glowing. Compared to Mariah Carey (a Featured Article), it is said no where that she is "one of the most famous female singers in the world". The closest claim that we could probably latch upon that is this grandiose is "according to the Billboard magazine she [Carey] was the most successful artist of the 1990s in the United States". However, we have a notable magazine saying thus, and the wording in this is quite neutral. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 22:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
   • No. This article borders on a fluff-peice. Seeing as how I know many of the fine folks at Club Jenna, you can rest easy now that they personally have edited this page may times or have plans to in the near future. The more you know! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angry Black Man (talk • contribs) 14:32, September 25, 2006
   • Yes. The "most famous" and "Queen" language is extravagant, but tighly cited - Forbes, Rolling Stone, and CNN. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
5. Does the article have a concise lead section that summarizes the entire topic?
   • No. It points out that she is a pornographic actress. Doesn't give us any other specifics other than that and a vague number of being "in over 100 porn related videos" in her career. It says nothing about her other accomplishments, such as building her own business a la Danni Ashe. That's about it. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 22:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
   • Yes. I added specifics on the multimillion dollar business and bestselling autobiography to the lead section, and cited "world's most famous". AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
6. Does the article have a proper system of sections/headings and a substantial, but not overwheming, table of contents?
   • Yes. There is a logical progression to the article. It would have to be tweaked, depending on how the article is revised, but we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 22:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
7. Does the article have images where appropriate with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status?
   • Yes to the captions. No to the pictures. We could stand to get a higher quality picture of her "cameo" appearance in Family Guy, since it is a screengrab from a FOX airing. The fair use image of her at the AVN Awards has no fair use rationale and probably will be removed, since we have a Creative Commons image of her in the infobox. The box cover depicted in the filmography section is also unnecessary, as we are not giving commentary to the film itself. To compare to another featured article on actress Uma Thurman, one will not see a boxcover to Kill Bill or Pulp Fiction, given that there is no reason for the box cover for The New Devil in Miss Jones. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 22:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
   • Yes and Yes now. I made a better screenshot of the Family Guy appearance, better quality, and one showing that it was a speaking role, and I removed the The New Devil in Miss Jones, which was "just another role", and replaced it with "Briana Loves Jenna", which is the one Jameson cites on her bio, Forbes reports on, and which was the first Club Jenna film, the first film she acted in with Grdina, and the best selling and best renting title of its year -- much better fair use justification, I think. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 05:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
8. Is the article tightly focused on the subject without going into unnecessary, unencyclopedic detail?
   • No. While focus is definitely present, the main thing holding it back is the "trivia" section. It needs to be removed to tighten the article, and the "trivia" itself either needs to be written into the prose, or removed entirely, as some of it is non-encyclopedic. For example: "She [Jenna Jameson] is a Roman Catholic, and despite the flak she gets, she says the only person that can judge her is God" sounds quite fanboyish and strikes me as something that needs to be eviscerated with zeal. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 22:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
   • Yes. Finally got rid of the trivia section, was able to reference most things and put them into more relevant places. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 07:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

JJ info

Joe, re. Jenna's info. You can go direct to her people, to get info and source data. Why not do it the easy way, vs. the unknown if "true or false" information (be it PR, polishing or outright gossip -- unknown if "valid"), when trolling through the many many sites -- You still never know what is true or false, just because it is "published," or "on a site."

Jenna is unique in the industry. Even if she provides info. w/ a spin, I'm sure it is easily "second sourced" by a referenced site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.39.202 (talk • contribs)

Unfortunately, we're not here to write the truth, merely what is verifiable. That's not necessarily the same thing. If we know something to be true, but don't have a verifiable source that says so, we can't write it. So we do need to find sources first, for us they're literally more important than the truth. Fortunately for this article, she did write a published autobiography, which should help a lot. Everything she says there may or may not be true, but is verifiable. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Date of Birth

I confess to having only a passing knowledge of who Jenna Jameson is, but I was channel surfing through the E! True Hollywood Story tonight and found the documentary, already in progress, which cites were birth year as 1964, including all the subsequent years moved back 10 years ("as a 16-year-old in 1990") from what's shown in this article. The show had interviews with her and her brother confirming these dates, And even a photo of her mother's gravestone dated 1966. I've changed the dates in this article accordingly and added the reference. It's also possible that I missed the beginning of the documentary that mentioned why her age is reported as ten years younger. Crunch 00:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The online pages said 1974 back when I cited them. They seem to be down now, but I linked to the Internet Archive copies that you can check. We'll need stronger sources to move it back 10 years. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Anal scene

Trivia includes "Has never done an anal scene on camera" by 71.233.47.227, who has no other Wikipedia edits. I reverted the edit and then had second thoughts. I found it on recent changes and I do not know enough about the subject to say whether this is vandalism or not. KeepItClean 23:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I found this source -- http://www.bridgemagazine.org/online/features/archive/000113.php -- which says she never did it as of 2001, but I also found this chat log, where she says that she was planning to do anal on film as of 2000 -- http://www.adultdvdtalk.com/chat/jenna_jameson.asp? So it's debatable. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 03:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I weaseled out of the issue by writing that she promised herself never to do so, but avoided writing whether she kept that promise or not. :-P. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 08:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Incest Porn Film

In the biography section it states that Jenna Jameson performed in a Incest Porn movie with her father and brother, which obviously means she had sex with her own father and brother on screen!! This is obviously completely false and is an act of vandalism. I tried to edit this out and was unable to, as for some reason the incest text appears on the main page but is completely missing from the edit page!! How is this possible? Try it yourself, read the article and you will see the Incest sentence, go to "Edit Page" and the sentence is not there! Someone who knows the reason for this needs to rectify it asap.

The above was written by Cole1982

The reason that you can't find it when you try to edit the article is because between the time that you're computer loaded the article and when you tried to edit the article, I already took it out. If you load the article again and hit refresh, you'll see that it's not there anymore. Check the article history and you'll see I took it out. And please sign your posts with four tildès like so: ~~~~. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 13:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Important Pornographic Work

I never knew there was such a thing. Isn't this some sort of oxymoron? And don't go trying to say porn is art either.

Porn is art. --Eniac turing 12:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Porn is art. Tolstoy the Little Black Cat 20:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Art is porn. Obbop68.13.191.153 02:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the term "important" is POV, and another word should probably be used in its place. Perhaps "pornographic career highlights" or something similar would be best? -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 03:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Porn must be important, how else would you explain the multi-billion dollar industry? And, morals and tastes aside, you can't deny the importance of a film like Deep Throat, whose very existence is a pillar of the free speech movement. RobbieNomi 05:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Minor point on references

It is amazing the amout of good references this article has. For some reason, in the reference section, the references are numbered twice. It would better if this could be changed somehow. ike9898 16:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "numbered twice". Do you mean that they're in two columns, and you want them in one column? For comparison, here is the last time they were in one column - do you like that better? AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

No, at least in my browser, the first reference starts with "1. 1. ", and all the rest are similarly 'numbered twice'. ike9898 18:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

This may be one of those occasional glitches that shows up in Wikipedia from time to time. Purge the page and the numbers should appear correctly.

Add the text: ?action=purge at the end of the url, as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenna_Jameson?action=purge

If that doesn't do it, I don't know what else you can try. (I don't know which browser you're using, either, it may be specific to your choice.) Hope this helps.—Chidom ^talk  18:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Just wondering if this did the trick?—Chidom ^talk  20:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I tried it and it didn't change anything, but since then I noticed I am seeing the same thing in other articles. I think this means that it is something on my end and not a problem with the article. Congrats on earning GA for this article. ike9898 21:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Good Article!

I'm happy to say that this article passes every Good Article criteria with flying colors. It is absolutely, in my view, worthy of Good Article status. Bravo (or brava) to everyone who worked on it. It is extremely well-referenced, contains great prose, has illustrative pictures (all with proper raionales), and it follows a logical structure. I personally don't like the big block quotes, but that's mere opinion. My advice would be to give the page another thorough copyedit, and then I think it would be ready to be a Featured Article candidate. -- Kicking222 15:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow! A very Good Thing™!—Chidom ^talk  20:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Folies-Bergère

"Her mother was Judith Brooke Hunt Massoli, a Las Vegas showgirl who danced at the Tropicana and the Folies-Bergère." Are you sure this is the Folies-Bergère in Paris, as the wikilink implies? The NYT article that is cited does not specifically say so. In the context of Las Vegas, it is more likely the Folies-Bergère show at the Tropicana mentioned in the same sentence. --Rosenzweig 21:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right. This is even more explicit. There's actually another thing not quite right about that New York Times article, where it says that 2003 was her first cover, that's clearly a typo; but I'm going to fight tooth and nail to keep the article there, as it is the NYT. Anyway, changing our article text to be more specific. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Jenna's autobiography

(The following text was originally posted to AnonEMouse's talk page here, but has been copied to this page so more people will be able to see and comment on what is discussed - Tabercil)

Took a hard look at it, and I can't see anything missing. Very well done! Tabercil 19:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I do have one question concerning this article: did you actually read her autobiography? I'm reading it right now, and although I have only reached page 170 (of 570), I already noticed several contradictions to what is written in the article (paragraphs "Early life" and "Early career"). Also some interesting facts from the book seem to be missing in the article, e.g. that she initially wanted to become a showgirl like her mother and actually achieved this (but stopped after a month or so and instead turned to stripping), and that the name she used as a stripper was "Jennasis". Regards --Rosenzweig 13:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I have the autobiography as well and I haven't reread it since I bought it with an eye to seeing what can be lifted from it for use within the article... since you're going through it, why not make a list of the items you think should be included, put that list on this talk page and we all can hash out what should & should not be folded in? Tabercil 15:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, but I can't make any promises about how fast I'll be. I'll try to list the contradictions & possible additions so far (to page 170) tomorrow. Regards --Rosenzweig 17:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

First, thank you very much for your thorough look at the book and the article. I welcome a second and third pair of eyes.

Contradictions: This is possibly the most thoroughly cited article on the whole Wikipedia. And it's not written primarily directly from the book, because one expects an autobiography to be self-serving, and kind to its subject. I expected (am still expecting!) controversy during the FA nomination, and wanted to be above any objections on that score. I tried hard to cite every fact with a verifiable and reliable source, often a very respectable source (Forbes, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, the Daily Telegraph), and for controversial ones with several sources. (I imagine that my sources leaned heavily on the book - but that's their problem, we don't guarantee truth, just verifiability.) As I mention in the "mainstream" section, she got most of her big name attention after the book came out, so they had full access to the book, and if they contradict the book, they're probably doing so for a reason. Being only human (muscine?) I may have missed citing a few, but I am sure that I did not miss many. (If I missed 5, I'll be disappointed, 10 shocked.) If you do find a few, please bring them up and let's talk about the individual ones.

Additions: The book has 600 pages or so, and is chock full of data; it was clearly written by people who wanted to concentrate on interesting information, and the fact it was a bestseller for a long time shows they managed it. In addition, a lot happened to her after the book was published. An article that covers even 10% of the interesting parts of the book, with proportional weight to later events stuff, would therefore be well over 60 pages, and would make the FA reviewers scream that we're not giving that much weight to Albert Einstein. (Yes, I am obsessed with the eventual FA nomination - that is why I am doing this.) So my take was 1) to try to keep everything that was added to the article by others besides me that I could at all cite, respecting other editors' work (one of my proudest moments was when I could find a good cite for a User:Haham hanuka item about what she does and does not do on screen - that's the main thing he puts in articles, and it usually gets deleted as uncited porncruft) and 2) to otherwise concentrate on the parts of the book covered in the reviews, and the articles which I use for my citations. They're really good sources. Besides the ones above, Salon Magazine, Rolling Stone, E!, may not be quite up to the New York Times but still are nothing to sneeze at, and have good writers, so hopefully they knew to concentrate on the important stuff. Feel free to add in a the most important facts that you think have been left out, but we just don't have room for everything. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You managed not to say whether you actually read it or not ;-) I don't intend to add each and every incident from the book, far from it, most are interesting to read in the epic context of the autobiography, but irrelevant for a (more or less) concise encyclopaedia article. I'll mention those things that I think are really important to her biography and have started to do so below. --Rosenzweig 17:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Contradictions or unclear passages that have caught my eye so far:
  • The article says that "Massoli's brother Tony, who later owned a tattoo parlor himself,[1] added the inscription "HEART BREAKER"." In the book, Jameson implies that Jack added this description two weeks later (page 10).
  • ... "in 1991, though underage, she began dancing in Las Vegas strip clubs using a fake I.D." The book does not mention anything about a fake ID. She describes that she said she was seventeen, was rejected because of her age, pleaded with the owner saying that she would make him a lot of money, and was then allowed to work there anyway (p. 35).
  • "Initially rejected from the Crazy Horse Too strip club because of the braces on her teeth, they quickly relented when she removed them with the aid of her brother and a pair of needle-nosed pliers." In the book, she writes that she did this alone, using the already mentioned needle-nosed pliers and a wire cutter from her boyfriend Jack's toolbox (p. 34).
  • "She was soon earning US$2000 per night, before finishing high school." She writes that she made two thousand to four thousand dollars per night (p. 49).
  • "She finally decided on Jameson for Jameson Whiskey, which she drinks." She writes in the book about scanning through the "J" section of the phone book, rejecting several names for various reasons, including Jameson because it was "too alcoholic". On second thought she decides that she likes it, because "it was the name of a whiskey, and whiskey was rock and roll." No mention that she actually drank it (p. 86/87).
  • Her height is given as 5 feet 7 inches. In the book, she writes she is five feet six inches (p. 30). That was when she was 17, perhaps she was still growing.
• Possible additions:
  • The name she used as a stripper was Jennasis (pp. 36, 86).
  • She wanted to become a Las Vegas showgirl like her mother and applied at several shows. Most rejected her because she didn't have the required height of 5 feet 9 inches, but at the Vegas World show in the Stratosphere Hotel, she was hired. She left after two months because "the schedule was brutal" and "the money was terrible" (pp. 30/31).
  • She decided to get her breast enlargement just after her 20th birthday, because while stripping and during her early movie career she had always lost customers and box covers to other girls with "bigger, faker boobs". For years on every July 28 she celebrated her "boob day" (presumably that's when the surgery was). After the surgery, she thought the implants were "way too big for my frame". She even compares them to Barnum and Bailey's Circus (pp. 169/170).

One should keep in mind that her autobiography may not be entirely accurate in all details. Concrete dates, e.g., are rare. so we'll have to decide in each case whether the book or the other sources are more reliable. --Rosenzweig 20:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, time to check exactly what is said by what:

• Tattoo: checking this reference take us to E! Online... on the second page which a timeline here is the exact text: "Later in 1990: Her first serious relationship is with the man who gives her the trademark double-heart tattoo on her butt. The tattooed word Heartbreaker was added later...by her brother." So that clearly states that her brother did the text, but the book does not clearly state the text was done by Jack. I would leave the text as is.
• Fake ID, braces and nightly earnings: from E! Online's timeline again: "1991: She uses a fake ID to apply for a job stripping but is told to reapply after she has her braces removed. That night, her brother helps her use needle-nose pliers to remove the braces. She goes back to the strip club the next day and gets the job. After six months, she is making $2,000 a night." The fake ID would be needed irregardless, so I would leave that in. The earnings part I would change to read :"She was earning $2000 to 4000 a night" and add a reference to the book as well. The only flat-out contradiction is the braces removal. I'd say either drop the reference to her brother doing the work, or fold it in a stated contradiction (with double references). So we would have either:

"she removed them with the aid of a pair of needle-nosed pliers[1][2]", or

"she removed them herself with a pair of needle-nosed pliers[1] (though some accounts say the removal was done with her brother's aid)[2]"

• Stage-name: One cite leads to E Online again: "Later in 1991: Jenna Massoli chooses her new last name, Jameson, out of a phone book. She likes that it is also a brand of whiskey.". The other leads to a video online at Metacafe of her on a red carpet somewhere explaining how she got the name. My transcription of her words: "So I actually looked through the phone book, and at first I came up with James, as in Jenna James, but i thought that oh sounds too porno. So, I drink a lot of Jameson whiskey. So, there you go - Jenna Jameson. I'm named after a liquor". No indication in either reference that she was actually drinking the whiskey at the time, so I'd drop the "which she drinks" text.
• Height: that comes from the NY Times, dated 2004. I'd leave that it in as 5' 7" and chalk up the difference to her still growing (as you suggest).

As for your additions, definitely add her stage name, and also her time as a showgirl. I'd also add the breast enlargement info, but only stating it as "she got her first breast enlargement just after her 20th birthday", as she's had multiple surgeries (both additions and removals - see here). If anything I'm going to copy'n'paste this conversation over to the Jenna Jameson page so more eyeballs see it. Tabercil 02:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again both of you.

• I like the idea of mentioning the pliers contradiction "(by some accounts with her brother's aid)".
• I actually think the "I drink a lot of Jameson whiskey" qualifies as a fine reference for "which she drinks". :-)
• I was thinking about putting in something about implants, but couldn't get enough good sources. The New York Times, a fine source, mentions she had them, which is enough for the infobox, but to do a thorough job in the text we really need to give details on the multiple operations and the chin implant. Now that I think about it, I guess that isn't too self-serving, so you could probably cite the autobio directly for that if you want. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestions from both of you. For the pliers, let's mention that there are conflicting sources. For the whiskey: how about "which she says she drinks"? Implants: it would probably be best to just mention that she got the first ones just after her 20th birthday, citing the book. The site Tabercil linked to mentions that she actually was about to have them removed late in 2004 - did this happen? If so, it should be given a short mention as well.

I think her early nude modeling career is not yet adequately represented in the article, since that's how she got into porn, not from stripping, and since that is what she got her pseudonym "Jameson" for. She writes that she always wanted to be in magazines (p. 77), and through a test photo shoot makes the acquaintance of well-known photographer Suze Randall, who then proceeds to photograph her for many magazines, including the ones already mentioned in the article (pp. 91 to 105). How about distilling this into two additional sentences? Oh, and she writes that many magazines printed her pictorials under a made-up name like Daisy, Shelly or Missy, so the line "under that name, she had posed nude in such magazines as ..." may not be entirely accurate. In her Hustler centerfold (November 1994) she's credited as Jenna. --Rosenzweig 17:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I added the Jennasis and Vegas World info, with citations, please improve them if you feel like it. Note our Vegas World article says it was demolished to make room for Stratosphere in 1995, when Jameson was already in California, so I'm leaving out Stratosphere. Look again at the "Jennasis Entertainment" bit - is that both interesting and appropriate?

I still don't see why we need to write "which she says she drinks" - surely whether she does or not is not controversial, and one statement is enough for us to take her word for it. It's not as if she were a preacher or temperance crusader, she's admitted to addictions to far harder stuff than mere whiskey. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Pliers, brother citations separated, additional fake ID citation provided. I can't find a source for the early $4000 per night, and that could be the "unduly self-promotional" bit that we are supposed to be wary of using autobiographical sources for - do we really need it? We aren't really contradicting the autobiography, just lowballing. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• The article currently says her autobiography was on the NYT bestseller list for six weeks, but the Brandweek article [1] says sixteen weeks. --Rosenzweig 18:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Battle of the references. Unless you find more, I'd go with the six, believing Forbes over Brandweek. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Found another source, and it seems Forbes is right with the six weeks. Here is a compilation of old NYT bestseller lists. Her book is first listed on September 5, 2004 (rank 9), rising to rank 6 the next week, then slowly falling to rank 13 on October 10, the last week it is listed. --Rosenzweig 18:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• AnonEMouse: I'm fine with all of your changes. As for the whiskey bit: if you want to keep it like it is, that's okay with me. But I personally think it's not really necessary to mention that she drinks it, as it doesn't seem to play an important role. The $ 4000 are not really necessary to mention, if you're more comfortable with the $ 2000, let's stick with them.

  I noticed another major contradiction: the timeline is partially wrong. The article says that "Jack left her in 1992". But just one sentence before that one can read "during her four years with her boyfriend". Those four years started in 1990, when she was sixteen. So the article contradicts itself. According to the book, her Randy West scenes were filmed in April 1994 (April 18 and 19). She writes that Randy had called her after another movie she was in came out, that was an Andrew blake softcore movie called "Fantasy Women", filmed in 1993. She writes that she did another movie "every now and then" after that (only one of them with a heterosexual sex scene), all before she got her first breast implants. After an unpleasant experience on a set, she stopped doing movies for a while, got her implants (even though she neither danced nor did movies at the time), got more into drugs and lost so much weight that she finally weighed 80 pounds (and even less later, she writes 75 pounds). At THAT time, Jack left her, she writes. A few days later, Jack's friend sends her to her father by plane to recover. She writes that her father and grandma nursed her back to health (with butter-soaked focaccia bread, no olive oil here). After six weeks of this, she relocates to LA and her friend Nikki Tyler, where she continues to eat for another month and then starts magazine work again. Several weeks after that, she receives another movie offer (Silk Stockings), and after some thinking finally talks about her wanting to do it to her father on the phone. Her father does not agree with her decision, but supports it.

  That's how it is told in the book. So it seems Silk Stockings was the first movie done after her decision to actively pursue a career in porn movies, and the movie was done in 1995. --Rosenzweig 18:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Meep. The E! timeline implied that she detoxed in 1992, and got into movies after that, in 1993, [2]. The New York Times implied the same thing, [3] as did this [4]. However I see now they didn't say it outright, and I'm not sure where Jack leaving in 1992 came from. It looks like you're right, we'll need to rewrite that. Olive oil came from Higginbotham/Telegraph, [5], and Focaccia is generally made with it. I suspect no real Italian uses butter ... :-) ... but won't press the point; we can write Focaccia bread. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will eventually rewrite if you don't do it first. Where did the "bidding war" come from that is mentioned in the article and supposedly took place before Wicked signed her to a contract? The cited Forbes article does not mention it, and neither does the autobiography. In the book, she writes that, after not performing in movies for a long time, not being able to get magazine work and being short on cash, she made an appointment with Wicked's boss Orenstein, talked to him about wanting to become the biggest porn star ever and got a contract. No bidding war. Also, that was in 1995, not in 1994 as Forbes writes. --Rosenzweig 18:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Changes implemented

• I've read the rest of the autobiography and have made some changes to the article, most of them outlined above. Once again the bit about the text of her first tattoo added by her brother: in the book she writes that eventually, when he had health problems in his old job as a drywaller, her brother decided to open a tattoo shop himself, even though he had never held a tattoo gun before in his life. That was in 1997 or 1998, well after she got the tattoo, so it just can't be her brother who added the text. The only reference we have for it is the E! timeline, and I don't trust it in this case. I think we should lose the bit about her brother adding the tattoo text. --Rosenzweig 15:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• @AnonEMouse: nice job with the recent changes and additions, I like them. Now, as promised, my final (I at least hope so) thoughts about what should be changed. There are two minor inconsistencies: 1) the article states that "By the age of 20, Jameson's photos had appeared in such magazines as Hustler, Penthouse, and Chéri." The source for this is the AskMen.com article. Hustler is confirmed, as is Cheri ([6], December 1993 isue), but I have a problem with Penthouse. In her book she writes that she always wanted to be in Penthouse, but it never came true initially, and only much later did they print photos of her (I could find some in the September 1999 and January 2004 issues). So that's a contradiction. Possible solutions: a) leave out Penthouse, b) reorganize the sentence so it does not say she was in Penthouse by the age of 20, c) replace Penthouse with another title. In the book she mentions Hustler, "Cherry" (meant Cheri perhaps?), and High Society. 2) In the relationships chapter, Nikki Tyler is discussed, and it is mentioned that they lived together again in 2000. That's from the AskMen.com feature again. In the book she writes that she moved in with her again after ending a relationship to a man named Jordan in Miami, where she had lived (and even built a house) in 1997/98. There are no exact days given, but from the context it seems to have been in May 1998 or so. Shortly after that, she met her future husband Jay Grdina at the VSDA convention in Las Vegas (July 1998). She went on a strip club tour with Nikki Tyler (performing together as "Hell on Heels") after that, which seems to have extended into 1999; Luke Ford has 5/9/99 (May 9, 1999, I think?) as the date for a NYC appearance. So she definitely started to live together with Nikki Tyler earlier than 2000. Possible solution: change the sentence, make it read "before her second marriage" or something like that.

  Other thoughts: It seems that in 1997 to 1999 (or even 2000) she had a major vicodin addiction. You can read a whole drama about this on Luke Ford's page, and even though she denies it there, she admitted to it in her book. Perhaps the addiction should be mentioned somewhere in the article in a short sentence. In other places, I think the article should be shortened. That she cried after her current boyfriend Ortiz was beaten up in one of his performances is totally irrelevant for an encyclopedia article IMHO and should be thrown out altogether. And especially the article's introduction, the part before the biography section, is much too long, it really should be tightened. My suggestion would be to throw out the things that are not of paramount importance to her career, e.g. the awards for the first Club Jenna movie, her Playboy TV show, her GTA voice work, her E! guest hosting and her role in Mister Sterling. All of these things are interesting, but together they're making the introduction much too long, and the introduction should serve as a short presentation of the most important facts. Besides, all of them are repeated later in the article, so by removing them from the introduction nothing would really be lost. One would have to move some references that are cut from the introduction to the next place they are mentioned. The introductory section would then read:
  

Jenna Jameson (born Jenna Marie Massoli on April 9 1974) is an American pornographic actress and entrepreneur who has been called the world's most famous porn star and "The Queen of Porn".

She entered pornographic films in 1993 after having worked as an exotic dancer and glamour model. By 1996, she had won the three top newcomer awards from adult film industry organizations. She has since won more than 20 adult film awards, and has been inducted into both the X-Rated Critics Organization (XRCO) and Adult Video News (AVN) Halls of Fame.

In 2000, Jameson founded adult entertainment company Club Jenna with Jay Grdina, whom she later married. By 2005, Club Jenna had revenues of US$30 million with profits estimated at half that. Advertisements for her site and films, often bearing her picture, tower on a forty-eight-foot-tall billboard in New York City's Times Square.

Jameson is also noted for her relative success in crossing over into mainstream celebrity, starting with a minor role in Howard Stern's 1997 film Private Parts. Her 2004 autobiography, How to Make Love Like a Porn Star: A Cautionary Tale, spent six weeks on The New York Times Best Seller list.

This is still a long introduction, but I think all things that are still present are useful and necessary to give the reader an impression of who this person is. --Rosenzweig 15:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, about "she has also avoided interracial intercourse": That may be true as far as men are concerned, but she did have at least one interracial lesbian scene, an all-girl threeway in the 1994 Wicked movie "Kiss", together with two black performers named Taboo ([7]) and Anna Amore ([8]). --Rosenzweig 16:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the compliment; I can't thank you enough for the invaluable research you put in, and your suggestions. Taking out Penthouse is rough - almost that exact line is all over the place on the Web, but I agree, it is an important point in her autobio. So I'm willing to believe the AskMen interview was the original source, and I guess they might have gotten it wrong. Sigh. Hustler, High Society, and Cheri can be sourced individually, but I can't find a single source for them all - can you? Should we source one line with three separate refs? I don't think we can leave out the mag names entirely, they're fairly important to that part of her career. (Interestingly enough that she later got a whole issue to herself in Penthouse isn't such a big deal, because by 2004 she could get any pornographic spot she wanted.) Nikki Tyler 2000 is from the AskMen article - are they wrong on that too? Well, I guess that later part isn't so important. Will take your suggestion. Agree about crying over Ortiz not being relevant, will take out (it wasn't my addition, by default I usually try to leave in others' work in some form). I thought "intercourse" meant heterosexual, but I guess not - clarified. The lead-in I actually like, I'm afraid, and it did get good comments on the peer review. It should be 3-4 paragraphs according to Wikipedia:Lead section, it's 3, and it's not the longest among recent FA's on the main page, Alcibiades, for example, is longer. I think the sentences you propose to remove are important - without giving specifics, it's not clear to the average reader that Club Jenna is such an important player, and just what we mean by relative mainstream celebrity. Can we wait for another opinion, for example to see if anyone at the FAC review thinks we should shorten it?

Meanwhile, elsewhere you mentioned waiting for Luke Ford or others to put up some blonde pictures - he did! It's the "Adult Entertainment Expo 2007" sections on his main page right now, http://www.lukeisback.com/ - I clicked around and think these are probably the best photos for lead section alternate: [9] [10] [11] What do you think? Since we do have permission, should we use several? AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Use the first pic. That's the closest of the three to Jenna's iconic look. The other two to my eye do not look like Jenna at all... for one thing the hair length in the next two pics is severely shorter. I think Luke's misidentified the subject of those two photos (which he has done before). Tabercil 18:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so, there are more than 30 pictures of her in that blue dress on Luke's page, some with her (still) husband Jay Grdina, several showing her from head to toe, including some well-known tattoos. Those pictures were taken two days after the ones in the black dress, perhaps she had a haircut? Also, there are pictures of her at the current AVN expo from other photographers showing exactly the same hairstyle, e.g. this set (pictures 21 to 24) (unfortunately we can't use those :-(, unless you convince this guy to allow the use of his pictures). Of Luke's pictures, the ones I like best are [12], [13], [14]. One head shot (actually, a bit more can be seen :-)), one shot of the upper body, and one of the whole person. --Rosenzweig 18:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, the hazards of checking Wikipedia while at work. I couldn't do some proper surfing to verify the pics, but it appears that it is indeed Jenna. One who looks a lot older than her 32 years, but Jenna just the same. I still think that this one is still the best - though if I were to upload that photo, I'd take it through Photoshop first to remove the red-eye effect. Tabercil 00:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Uploaded the two images that seem to be on two of our lists to commons. Did a bit of red-eye reduction on the long hair one - though if someone can do a better job, please feel free, this was my first red eye reduction work. Take a look at three versions of the article with each picture, and see which looks best to you:

1. Full length, long brown hair, suit
2. Long blonde hair, black tube top
3. Short blonde hair, blue dress, shows breast enhancements

I'm not sure myself, I'll have to stare at them for a while. By the way, Tabercil, if I haven't mentioned it 20 times already, thanks again for that Luke Ford license, the WP:P* section of the Wikipedia wouldn't be the same without it. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, definitely :-). I personally don't like the picture of her in the black top. Sure, it's closest to her "classic" look, but her facial expression in this picture is a bit vacant—to be blunt, she looks stupid. And while the article certainly isn't meant to glorify her, I think we should avoid to put such a picture in this place. I actually like the old picture best for that position. The new ones can (and should) be used to illustrate other sections, there's still room for pictures without crowding the article. --Rosenzweig 17:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey I'm still busy adding photos to Wikipedia. What I'm doing is checking through Flickr for photos of various people and sweet-talking the person who uploaded the photo into changing the license on said photo to use Creative Commons, then using the photo on the article. Some of the articles which I've illustrated this way are Samantha Fox, Lisa Marie Varon, and I just snagged clearance earlier today for a photo for Carmella DeCesare (which I'll upload after work). One simple email and I'm running around a 50% success rate. :) Tabercil 16:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• About the lead section: this seems to be a major difference between the English and the German wikipedia. I'm mostly a guest here, writing at the German wikipedia normally, so I didn't know the lead section page you referred me to. According to this page, a complete mini-article seems to be the desirable goal here for an introduction. In the German wikipedia, on the other hand, what we want there for an introduction is just a definition. That definition may take a few sentences, if necessary, but it certainly shouldn't be a small article itself. So it seems the introduction as it stands meets the requirements here, let's leave it at that. (But it's still much too long for my personal taste, too :-).)

  I couldn't find an article mentioning her appearances in Hustler, Cheri, and High Society together (at least so far), and in her autobiography, Cheri is unfortunately misspelled as Cherry. How about one ref containing three links? I did find this, which is an overview of her magazine appearances from 1993 until 2000 or so (including outside the US), perhaps it is useful. --Rosenzweig 19:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Stumbled upon another problem: The awards section is incomplete and partially wrong. She won Hot d'Or Best New American Starlet in 1996, not 1995. The same year, she also won Hot d'Or for Best American Actress (again in 1997 and 1998). As reference for 1995, you cite the NYT book review, where it says "the Hot D'Or awards in Cannes, where at 21 she is anointed Best New American Starlet." That's based on her book, where she also writes that she is 21 years old at the time, but this is wrong. On p. 408 of the book, a contemporary advertisement from Wicked congratulating her is reproduced, where all her awards so far are listed: 1996 Best New Starlet Award from Hot d'Or, AVN, XRCO, FOXE; 1996 Best Actress from Hot d'Or and AVN. If you need something to cite, here's a partial list of Hot d'Or winners—not official, unfortunately, and in French, but I hope you can make out the categories (if not, I can help). --Rosenzweig 20:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

  PS: The German article on the Hot d'Or awards is much more comprehensive than the English one. --Rosenzweig 20:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Final set?

I followed your suggestions about Hot D'Or, clarified the Penthouse bit, removing the AskMen ref. Unfortunately, I couldn't find a good source for High Society, Cheri, and Hustler - we'll have to live without it. I found a reasonable source for implants, and broke that out into a separate paragraph - was that a good idea or a bad one? Is that all? Are we ready to nom for FA? AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm ... "two sets of breast implants"? Sounds a bit like she had them simultaneously, making her a strange person indeed. Also, there's one of those "woulds" again :-) I think you should reword that. How about "... birthday, which were later replaced by different implants. She also has a chin implant." I'm not quite sure about this implant business. It's obvious that she had breast implants at some point, she says she had them replaced later, and the NYT article says she has a chin implant (what for? I ask myself. Is there any other source for this?) Was there any other surgery of the cosmetic kind? Tabercil once linked to a page stating she also had plastic surgery (beyond the fake breasts). Perhaps that would be worth mentioning. But perhaps it's only gossip. Unfortunately, your source [15] isn't there anymore, I get a 404 error.

The sentence about her brother tattooing her backside is still in the article. I still think that should be removed, there's only one source for this, and it's in contradiction to what she writes herself in her autobiography (see above; she writes that her brother decided to open a tattoo shop himself, even though he had never held a tattoo gun before in his life. That was in 1997 or 1998, well after she got the tattoo, so it just can't be her brother who added the text.) Finally, it's not relevant at all for the article. Dubious and not relevant = remove.

I don't really know what is expected of a Featured Article here in the English wikipedia. If I were to nominate it for Exzellente Artikel in the German wikipedia, I'd say reduce the trivia. For instance, just tell that she is dating Ortiz and that they are living together, throw out his appearance before the Marine Corps. Keep the wax figure, but remove the whispered message. Keep the autobiography's content, but throw out that the books are numbered with Roman numerals and preceded by sonnets. And so on. Ask yourself: what is really relevant for an article in an encyclopaedia? This is what I would suggest, and this is what was suggested by many others during the successful nomination of the German version of this article (see below). Once again, I don't know if that is what would be expected here in the English wikipedia as well. Once it is nominated, I'll have to keep an eye on the discussion and see what happens.

Another thing that was mentioned over the course of the nomination at de.wp was that the article doesn't tell the reader much about how Jameson is perceived outside the US. She was invited to Oxford to debate, so obviously she must be known in the UK, and there's an Australian article among the references, but that's all (or did I overlook something?) Was her book published outside the US? If so, how were the reactions (at least in the English-speaking contries, like the UK, Australia etc.)? A German translation was published, by a large publisher, and it did get reviews; Germany's biggest illustrated magazine, Stern, ran a story on her just after the US edition of her book was published, and even before the German translation hit the shelves. They called her "the uncrowned queen of hardcore" (die ungekrönte Königin des Hardcore) and "in the USA, something like the Julia Roberts of porno - a superstar" (in den USA so was wie die Julia Roberts des Pornos - ein Superstar). If you want go for Featured Article, those are things worth considering. It doesn't have to be a large paragraph, two sentences or so would be nice. (And yes, I know I'm a demanding nuisance, but once you nominate the article for FA, be prepared for more of this from others ;-) --Rosenzweig 20:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much, you're still invaluable. This would be my first FA, though I've looked at a few by other people. I'll try to reword the implants bit; the source link works fine for for me. Tabercil's source seems to be something like a fan site, while Star (magazine) is a tabloid, but it's a very popular one. :-) OK, I will remove the brother, but did think it was an interesting bit. I can shorten the Ortiz/Marine Corps bit, but I do think it's important enough to keep - if she were just dating him, that would be trivial, people date people all the time - but the incident shows (1) that she is a controversial enough figure to be excluded from certain events (2) that their relationship is committed enough that he prefers to lose work rather than not be accompanied by her. Can also cut the roman numerals and the whispered message. International impact is implied by the fact she raked in all those Hot D'Or awards, but that's not explicit, I admit. I couldn't find much with, possibly because I don't know where to look, but, frankly, don't think its absence is critical. Looking at other Wikipedia:Featured articles about modern actresses - Uma Thurman, Lindsay Lohan, Katie Holmes - most don't have anything about international reception (even though I'm sure more of their works have been translated into other languages than Jameson's!). I'd be happy if you could find something, such as in the Stern article, that we could cite, of course - I put it through a Google translation, and it does seem to mention the whisky, for example. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 00:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Breast implants section rephrased, and I moved the image that best demonstrates them closer there, and restored the full length one. That only leaves finding a place for the long blonde hair one that Tabercil liked best - there should be a way to make everybody happy! Will work on the rest. Continued comments welcome. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The star magazine link works for you? That's strange, I still get a 404 error. http://www.starmagazine.com/ says "Page unavailable/under construction". I've also tried from another computer at another location, different operating system, different web browser, but the same result.

The Stern article is mostly based on her book, everything substantial that is said in there is already in one or more other source(s). The point is that if a major magazine like this prints an article on that person, there must be an interest in her in that country. --Rosenzweig 14:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I think there is something weird with the starmagazine site - maybe they only want US users? I tried some proxies, and sometimes got what you got. It does work for me in general. http://archive.org seems to be out temporary, when it is up, will include a link there. Here is one that works, http://proxify.com, you may need to paste the link in there, or try this link directly: [16] AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps they really only want US users. But why don't they just say so then instead of displaying bogus error pages? The proxy link works here, thank you. --Rosenzweig 17:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

All right, I got rid of the Roman numerals, whispered message, shortened Ortiz/Marines. I rephrased the brother/tattoo, emphasizing it's according to one source - is that good enough? If not, I will reluctantly cut it out entirely. For international, I looked but couldn't find articles on impact, but did find Spanish and German autobiography translations on Amazon, and gave ISBNs. Apparently there aren't any French or Japanese translations, the next most likely suspects. I couldn't think of an appropriate place for the long hair pic, sorry Tabercil, but if you find a good place yourself, please put it in and I will be happy. If you look below, you'll see I'm not the only one itching for the FA nom - anything more? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Successful nomination at de:

Thought you might be interested: a somewhat shortened translation of this article into German done by another user (Achim Raschka), subsequently heavily edited by me, was just elected to be a Lesenswerter Artikel (Article worth reading) in the German wikipedia. That's the equivalent of a Good Article, but there's an actual voting procedure. You can find the discussion here. (But it's in German, of course ;-)) Three users opposed it, two mainly because they didn't think an article about a porn actress should be awarded this label, one because he felt there were too many yellow-press references (he admitted that he didn't even read the article, only looked at the references). The original translator, who nominated it, was neutral, as were five others who felt that the article's language and content still needed some work. One changed his vote from oppose to neutral because he felt that the article had improved considerably over the period of its candidacy, but he didn't have enough time to reevaluate it. 16 users supported it. --Rosenzweig 20:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Grammar Police

I'm working on cleaning up the grammar/spelling on this page. I'm not making any significant changes to content. I only hope to improve the readability. Feel free to compare versions or email me with questions. Thanks --Legomancer 10:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Certainly good intententions, but I'd welcome a bit more diligence. By replacing "Randall" with "him", you made Suze Randall into a man. --Rosenzweig 14:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Accessdates

Before you take this article to FAC (which must surely be long overdue), don't forget to add accessdates to all the online references. It's a pain, I know, (and that's why I'm not doing it myself ;) ) but it's regularly brought up on FAC. Other than that the article looks great. Trebor 00:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• With 98 references? Meep... Someone's gonna have fun adding that to the article - just won't be me either. <G> Anyway thanks for the heads-up... did some quick work on the Ron Jeremy article to add proper Cite Webs for all the stuff there. I'm hoping we can build that article up to be the next Good Article. Tabercil 01:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Overdue -- possibly, but I want it to be right, and there are a couple of points that our invaluable friend from the German Wiki keeps bringing up. (Why am I shocked that the German Wikipedia is stricter than the English? old joke about heaven and hell :-) ) My motivation isn't just to make this an FA, but to make this the definitive WP:P* article, so that those often rather poor quality articles have something to aspire to. Accessdates -- someone please correct me - is the idea to write the latest date the web page existed, or the earliest? I'm working from the former idea, so basically checking that each link is still there, and writing today's date, which is tedious, but not back-breaking, even with 98 refs, but thought I really should double check before doing the rest. I can't find the specific answer on WP:CITE - can someone point me to an authoritative description of what accessdate should be? --AnonEMouse

^(squeak) 22:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• • • Yeah, it's the date it's been checked on. The idea being that if the link goes dead, we can use archive.org to find the reference (and link to that instead). So it basically involves going through each link, checking it is still as described, and adding "Retrieved on YYYY-MM-DD" (don't forget to wikilink the date for date preferences). A lot of the cite templates have a field automatically for it, but you don't appear to be using them. And when you're happy enough with it to nominate (silly perfectionists), I'll be first in line to support. Trebor 22:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Added, over 3 days. Whew. Anything else? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Well done, that's dull work. Nothing obvious springs out, perhaps there are a few too many stubby paragraphs (with the disclaimer that I haven't looked at the prose in much detail). It's looking good. Trebor 21:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I did message your talk page AnonEMouse, but I'm unsure if the message didn't get to you or not. In short, the article uses the Jenna Jameson book as a source - the article doesn't provide specific page numbers for each citation though. You'll have to use specific page numbers when using the book as a source, or it'll be brought up as an issue at FAC. LuciferMorgan 05:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it didn't make it to my talk page. Eeek! That's at least equally dull work - and it will push the different ref citations count well over the 100 mark, since they're all from different pages. You are probably right though, that it does need to be done. I'll do it myself if I absolutely have to - I do have access to a copy of the auto bio, but it's not easy access. Hmm - I wonder if I can push it off onto Rosenzweig, since he seems to be able to get his hands on it much easier, and did introduce most of those? :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Well the autobiography is directly cited 7 times in the article. I've found page references for 4 of them, leaving only 3 to go: the date of her set of implants, Wicked signing her to an exclusive and Jay Grdina entering porn after college. Tabercil 23:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The implants are on pages 169/170 of the book (first implants) and 487/488 (second implants). The exclusive contract is book IV, chapters 5 and 6, pages 341 to 351. How Grdina first came into the porn industry in 1982 is on page 498. It does not explicitly say it was after college, though; that's from Forbes. --Rosenzweig 00:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Rosenzweig. All the autobio segments should now have specific page references to them. Tabercil 08:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Sexual Orientation Change

On her official myspace page she is now claiming she is straight and no longer bi-sexual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.110.152.240 (talk • contribs) 07:27, February 8, 2007

Thanks; do you just mean the orientation box on the left side, or is it more detailed than that somewhere? If it's just the box, I think we can stay the way we have it, her relationship history is more extensive and complex than can be covered in one word anyway, quite possibly she picked one based on having a steady straight relationship now. If she makes a big deal of it somewhere, please do say. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry I wasn't more clear. On myspace.com pages, she has an official one, which I am pretty sure is quote in this article somewhere, she has changed her sexual orienation from bi-sexual to straight. Take a look yourself. Scroll all the way to the bottom and its on the left under her "In a Relationship" status with Tito. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.110.152.240 (talk) 07:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

Thanks. Yes, that's what I thought you meant. Considering most sources, including her autobiography, go into a fiar amout of detail about her having been bi for a large number of years, I think we should leave it at that for now, rather than go with a single word on her myspace page, which we don't have details on when it was written or why. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Adult vs. Porn

Using "Adult film" is being politically correct which is a violation of our POV policy. --TRFA 12:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not that clear cut, unfortunately, as "Adult film" is a term used by the industry itself... -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 14:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

TRFA: I just noticed the changes presumably accompanied by this comment. First, can you provide a specific link to where in the WP:POV policy it mentions political correctness? I couldn't find it. I could find a link to Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words, but that again doesn't say anything about political correctness. I admit, I can seathe reason for this, but I can also see the opposite argument (for example, so as not to overuse a single word), so I would appreciate having a link to the agreed-upon policy or guideline one way or the other. Second, in making this change, you wrote things such as "an stripper" which is grammatically incorrect, and changed the "adult film career" section to "porn career", which is incorrect - this is merely the film section, while porn would include much of her earlier work. You removed the line about Vivid being the world's largest film company without comment; that claim is backed by the Forbes reference cited twice in that paragraph, and Forbes is generally considered a pretty good source on the size of companies. In short, I'll keep some of your changes, but change others - please don't just revert them without addressing these issues.--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Gang rape phrasing

Restoring to original phrasing. The FAC review is right that it's poorly phrased otherwise. We're stating it as a fact, but then we're stating everythign as a fact. All we know is that a Wikipedia: Reliable source says so, in this case articles in two reputable newspapers. They may be taking it solely from the autobiography or not, we don't know, but they state it as a fact, so we can, unless some similarly reliable source questions it. No one has questioned it, to my knowledge. Note that, unlike the later rape, it does not accuse anyone in particular. The later one does, so we are careful to mark that one as "she says" or similar. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)