Talk:Bree Olson

Untitled

Denver944, per your note on the article I've placed an inprogress tag. Please review WP:BIO to see what kind of material is needed to show notability. Happy Christmas! Marasmusine (talk) 10:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• uh is she really at 36C? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.79.25.247 (talk) 00:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems like she has talked openly about having sex at a young age. If true this would am impact on her life. Can this be confirmined? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Todd2Todd (talk • contribs) 09:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

http://www.iafd.com/person.rme/perfid=BreeOlson/gender=f/Bree-Olson.htm says she is 32D-25-35 however, since its a natural bust, it can vary over time. Dogabutila (talk) 09:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Unsure where to add this, but the phrasing of "polemic horror film" is confusing, in reference to The Human Centipede 3 - how is the film "polemic" and why is that the most appropriate word? Should definitely be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.95.110.243 (talk) 01:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

picture

why is she pulling on her panties? 76.212.13.236 (talk) 09:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Because she is a porn star. You didn't know? UltraEdit (talk) 16:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Or is she pulling them off? Dismas|^(talk) 16:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Age?

The article says that she is 22 years old, but her official myspace says that she is 20. Which is right? I couldn't check the reference listed for her age used in the article. It just links to the front page. --Deleet (talk) 02:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that the "reference", if you can even call it that, is for her being a Penthouse Pet. Her age and location of birth are/were not sourced, so I removed them. Dismas|^(talk) 02:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Atheist list

The link to the list of atheists is irrelevant and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.48.109 (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, so I removed it. rbonvall (talk) 04:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

All of her personal information is wrong on here. I grew up with her and we went to high school together. Is putting up false facts just some way to protect her indentity? I can understand all of that.... Her birthdate and birthplace are wrong. Is her real name considered an alias? If it is, it's not up there —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.137.152 (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

We only operate by what is verifiable here at Wikipedia. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 13:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

picture

this picture is too old and clearly does not do justice to her

also it is a little inappropriate for wiki

even though she is a pornstar

may i recommend this one

http://cdn.mademan.com/chickipedia/images/9/9a/M_ab5420c7920c2360f413ec2cd548b448_178.jpg

Hganeriwala (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC).

That picture is clearly airbrushed. The current one is probably more how she really looks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.169.203 (talk) 22:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

One, because this article falls under WP:BLP, because it is an image of a living person, and because the linked image is copyrighted, it cannot be used because it does not meet the criteria for fair usage. Additionally, Wikipedia does not censor, therefore, it is not "inappropriate for Wikipedia". The only things which are seen as barred are obvious shock material, i.e. images of goatse.cx or the infamous 2 Girls 1 Cup. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 13:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Having seen/met her in person, the current picture is not really an accurate depiction of Bree, and is even a bit unflattering. I have no opinion either way, and I can't really cite having spoke to her a strip club, but for what it's worth the current picture is a strange one. Feel free to reformat this post appropriately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.95.110.243 (talk) 01:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Real name

Thanks for your contributions to the Bree Olson article but adding her real name to the article has a couple issues.

First, according to the Biographies of Living People policy, we must have a reliable source for any contentious information. A real name of someone who goes by a stage name definitely falls into that category. Even if you do work in the industry, you represent original research which is not allowed.

Second, we are not here to out anyone. Olson likely doesn't release her name to the general public for very good reasons and we are not here to infringe on her privacy.

So, unless you have a reliable source where her name has been released to the public, please keep any mention of her real name out of the article. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 06:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Ur a n00b, Dismas. Everybody knows what her name is. Besides, porn stars are no different then WWF wrestlers. The stage name AND real names are ALWAYS posted in the articles. Outing only applies to people trying to out wikipedia users, not hookers, porn stars, or wrestlers.User:RenamedUser5 (talk) 20:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I cited 3 resources that confirm her name, one of which is imdb. I understand the original research policy so I cited now several resources that confirm her name as being Rachel Oberlin. CarrieBee (talk) 06:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I see that, thanks. Although IMDb is not considered reliable for biographical info such as birth dates, names, etc. since their info is submitted by users and their fact checking is spotty. For pornography related articles, you can see a list of good sources at WikiProject Pornography. I can't check your third source right now due to being at work. Thanks for your understanding, Dismas|^(talk) 06:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok this is getting ridiculous now. I have given you three resources now, none of which is orginal research and falls under the "reliable published source" policy. Another resource, (http://www.trademarkia.com/bree-olson-77327301.html) states that BREE OLSON, as a trademark, is owned by Rachel Marie Oberlin. Under occupation it clearly states "providing a website featuring live performances by an adult entertainer." And here is even another resource, pornstarglobal. There have now been 5 sources cited, from public domains, all confirming "Rachel Oberlin". These sources are no different than all the other sources on the website. I am sorry you personally dont like the idea of her name being up there, but the facts speak for themselves. Now i could understand if there was only one source that I had cited which could have been seen as dubious or shady, but now you have five independent, public places stating that her real name is Rachel Oberlin. CarrieBee (talk) 17:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

As Dismas pointed out, IMDB is not considered a reliable source for biographical information - see here and here for some of the rationale behind that decision. The biography section of TV.com to me seems no different than IMDB so that's not useful. As for breeolsensex.com and pornstarglobal, who runs them? Who does the editorial control?? One of the indications of a reliable source is that we can see who stands behind it and ensures that what's said is accurate (see WP:SOURCES for the why on that) and I don't see any such indication. Lastly, yes the trademark registration does link Rachel Oberlin as being the owner of the phrase "Bree Olsen", but that is all it says. It does not say there that Rachel Oberlin is Bree Olsen. I mean, take a look at what that site says for Jenna Jameson - owned by "JENNA IP HOLDING COMPANY, LLC". Tera Patrick was originally submitted by Digital Playground, and later by "Teravision, Inc.". Stormy Daniels is owned by "Stormey Entertainment, Inc." Is it possible that Bree is really Rachel? Yes. But something such as her real name falls under the WP:BLP policy and that policy explicitly excludes public records such as trademarkia. From Wikipedia:BLP#Misuse_of_primary_sources:

Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. (emphasis original)

I understand what you're trying and sympathize in the difficulty in finding a suitable source. But BLP has deliberately raised the evidentiary bar rather high - see Wikipedia biography controversy for what prompted BLP to come into existence. And you're not the only person who's been entangled by this policy. Take Eva Angelina - she's retired but there's no reliable source out there which I can use for her article to make that statement. Tabercil (talk) 23:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

This is nonsense.

• Your assertion as to why tv.com is not a reliable resource is personal. "To me seems no different than" is not a reliable and valid argument. I dont care what your personal view is. Tell me exactly why tv.com is not a reliable resource.
• And what do you mean who runs breeolsensex.com and pornstarglobal? Similar kind of people who run all the other websites noted on her profile. Pornstarglobal is a database for pornstar bios. Who do you think runs them? What kind of a character do the people need to have to be accepted as reliable admins/hosts for a website?
• It seems to me that a source's reliability is arbitrary around here. The trademark registration is a public source, it is not original research. If anything, it can definitely be used as supporting evidence - since it is not the sole evidence. Also, saying that it "does link Rachel Oberlin as being the owner of the phrase "Bree Olsen", but that it does not say that Rachel Oberlin is Bree Olsen" is just wordplay. Given all the other information and sources we see out there (i.e. their sheer numbers) coupled with this information only strengthens the point that Bree Olson = Rachel Oberlin. Your guys' denial of this for the sake of just pure, impeding bureaucracy is completely incompetent.

Look dudes I think it is clear we all know she is Rachel Oberlin. There is enough evidence out there to support that. You guys act like i pulled the idea out of my butt from one single source and you are dimissing all the other half a dozen sources. Even if just one source is considered unreliable, the fact that there are 5 and more sources that independently of each other confirm the same thing, should make any rational person with some reason accept that her real name is Rachel Oberlin. You guys are acting as if i am lying or deliberately deceiving, insisting that her name is Rachel Oberlin based on one lousy, shady resource, which is not true. What you guys are doing is just counter productive.

As wiki archivists you should know that such behavior is unacceptable and stands in the way of creating a comprehensive encyclopedia. Every common sense is thrown out of the window here, which is also against wikipedia policy. When 5 different sources (and more) all state the same thing, independently of each other, and i see you all flat out denying that they exist essentially (because that is exactly what you are doing - by dismissing them you deny them altogether), then something is wrong. Again, I dont see why tv.com is not seen as a reliable resource.

It seems to me that you guys are just sore to see a new person play around in your background. A red link account is always grounds for dismissing that person's edits, right.

Anyway, I want concrete reasons as to why none of these sources is considered reliable; a link to a wikipedia policy page that specifically prohibits them. Referencing to me the url of the policy page doesn't do much as I do not see how any of the sites I cited (except for imdb) are considered unreliable. Otherwsie we can continue the edit war and wait for wikipedia to resolve this. it seems to me that you guys are opposing this edit on principle, and not based on fact, and that is not ok. Also, sign your posts. CarrieBee (talk) 00:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I guarantee you that if you choose to edit war over this issue, your account will be blocked. The person who adds information has the burden of proving that it complies with all of wikipedia's policies. Wikipedia's biography of living people policy clearly states that "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth where these have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object." Pornographic performers adopt pseudonyms to protect their privacy. You have not demonstrated how your sources are reliable nor can you reasonably infer that Ms. Olson would not object to this. The reason why digging through public records is discouraged is because wikipedia editors are not supposed to be reporters if the information has not been republished by a reliable source. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

If you want policy pages, WP:BLP is the most applicable. Others include WP:V and WP:RS.

As for the sources you provided:

• IMDb isn't trusted as you've admitted.
• TV.com is similar. Their info comes from users, much like IMDb, as you can see here. So, we have no way to judge the editorial oversight.
• BreeOlsonSex.com isn't owned or run by Olson as far as can be observed. The copyright at the bottom of the page is not Olson's name. And there is no indication that she has any control over it. Again, who is verifying this info? The New York Times is trusted because if they weren't their reputation, and their financial bottom line, would be damaged.
• Trademarkia is a database of public records. As such, it's a primary source. See Tabercil's earlier quote from that page regarding public records such as trial transcripts, etc. This brings me back to my previous comment about us not being here to out Olson. If Olson = Oberlin, then registering the trademark is simply a cost of doing business. It's not a public declaration that she's comfortable with her name being released.
• PornstarGlobal - is a database, yes. But who runs it and what is the consequence of them getting info right or wrong? What kind of fact checking do they do? Where did they get their info?

In regards to your comment about this being due to you have a red-linked username, that is a minor thing. It's not used against you but it is kept in mind (at least by me and I'm fairly confident that the other two editors who've responded here look at it in a similar way). What it tells me is that you haven't been here long enough to go through this sort of verification process before. You haven't been through the Wikipedia biography controversy. You weren't here when User:Jimbo Wales, one of the founders of Wikipedia, had to step in due to the arguments over Stephanie Adams' article. And you weren't here when a former adult model (can't recall the name right now but she was a Penthouse Pet of the Month) found Jesus or whatever and wanted all records of her porn past wiped out as if it never happened. Basically, we aren't being capricious about this. There's a history and a reason why these policies are as strict as they are. Working together we've compiled a list at WP:P* of various sources we do consider reliable for porn related articles. Dismas|^(talk) 08:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Look at what Wikipedia:Verifiability says: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." (emphasis original, except the underlined text which is mine). It doesn't matter is Bree Olsen is Rachel whoever - what does matter is whether we can back up that assertion to a reliable source. And as I stated, the criteria for articles about living people is deliberately set high. From the Biographies of living persons policy: "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons 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 Users who constantly or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." (again, all emphasis original except the underlined text which is mine) These are core and fundamental policies which sit at the very heart of Wikipedia, and they must be followed. There is no room for manoeuver around them nor can they be sidestepped, and attempting to do so will quickly get the violator blocked.

Now a practical suggestion to you: drop the Bree Olsen matter for now. Find other topics which do interest you and work on them. For instance, I see you've contributed to the article on the film Sleepwalkers. Are you a horror fan? If so, you may wish to join WikiProject Horror. Or maybe you're a Stephen King fan, in which case Wikipedia:WikiProject Stephen King might be more up your alley. We have tons of other projects which would gleefully welcome your assistance, and by working on other areas you will be able to learn the Wikipedia ropes in an area that doesn't contain as many landmines as the pornography section. <G> Then when you've gotten a better sense of how Wikipedia operates, then revisit her article. If you want, you have three long-time Wikipedia editors in myself, Dismas and Morbidthoughts who would be willing to help you out in terms of learning the training wheels. (Additionally, I'm an admin so I'm more familiar with the intricacies of Wikipedia policy than Dismas or Morbid and can help you out in that area). Tabercil (talk) 19:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. I don't care, but I note the Ft. Wayne News-Sentinel has poster that Bree Olson is Rachel Oberlin. I'd imagine this is an unimpeachable source as it is a local newspaper of record? I'm not going to edit the article though, I'll leave that to someone else to determine. http://www.news-sentinel.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110205/NEWS/102050338 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlesaf3 (talk • contribs) 04:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

As I read BLP, particularly as applied to porn stars, unless the subject voluntarily releases their real name, we don't report it on Wikipedia, no matter how reliably sourced the information. Further, this is being sourced to an arrest report. My own bias is that, being arrested on suspicion of drunk driving is not notable in a BLP. Period. I don't care if the BLP subject is a porn star of president of the united states. It isn't notable. Fladrif (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

BLP allows the publication of full names where they have been widely published by reliable sources even if the subject might object. It has been now. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

It also states this, " When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories." Nymf _hideliho! 01:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

You forgot the preceding sentence which introduces the premise, "Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event..." Bree Olson does not trigger this premise as she is not a private person nor does she fall under WP:BLP1E. It is triggered in this type of scenario. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

There is also this under WP:DOB, though: "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth where these have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object". Obviously she does object, or it would be widely known already. Nymf _hideliho! 01:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

You're interpreting the "or" incorrectly. It only requires one or the other. The first prong is satisfied with several reliable publications including eonline, a popular American entertainment website and channel, having published her name. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Feel like I am nitpicking here now, but the E-Online reference is actually a blog post. Nymf _hideliho! 02:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:RS:"'Blogs' in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources." Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I think when it comes down to things, it is referred to as a blog as it does not have the same editorial review that a real news article might have, which says a lot about whether we should use it as a reliable source or not. They even refer to it as gossip themselves. Nymf _hideliho! 02:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

It's pointless to speculate how much editorial control reliable sources have over their professional journalists simply because they call them blogs. See WP:NEWSBLOG. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

When the only mainstream media reports of her name were a result of the drunk driving arrest, the release of her real name was not voluntary, and putting it in the article violated BLP as I understand it. Now, with her name being used widely in national media due to the connection with Sheen, including in interviews of her on network TV, she has clearly consented to the identification, and it is proper to now include it in the article. Fladrif (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Has the full version been used? Can you source it? As far as I know, Sheen has only referred to her as "Rach". Nymf _hideliho! 22:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

EOnline reported that Sheen used her name in his radio interview by Pat O'Brien [1], and the ABC GMA & 20/20 interviews, and all the news organizations feeding off that interview are reporting her full name. The interviewer and the others calling her Rachel to her face on camera.[2] Her mother has even been interviewed.[3] So, I don't think that there is any plausible argument in light of the events of the past 24-48 hours that she hasn't now consented to be publicly identified by her real name. In light of that changed circumstance, I've changed my position on use of her real name in Wikipedia. I see no problem with it whatsoever under WP:BLP at this point in time. Fladrif (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

(EC)Do you mean with her middle name (whatever that is)? Dunno... but her ID as Rachel Oberlin is pretty much out of the bag when you have People magazine and The Daily Mail (besides what other places there are) running the name... Tabercil (talk) 23:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

You are right. I hadn't read any of those sources. Only saw the interviews with Sheen. Feel free to add it. Nymf _hideliho! 23:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

n00bs n00bs n00bs - her name is rachel. u guys need to all qq User:RenamedUser5 (talk) 20:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

LOL... "noobs"?? Lessee... I have over 28 thousand edits on Wikipedia, Nymf has over 20 thousand and Morbidthoughts over 18 thousand. You have all of 50. I think that says it all. <G> But I do think we're getting off the track here... Tabercil (talk) 03:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Charlie Sheen

It has been well circulated in the tabloid community that she has links to Charlie Sheen, including a time in January where the two stayed together during a wild weekend at a Las Vegas hotel. Is that worth mentioning here? Karrmann (talk) 15:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I would say so if it can be reliably sourced. Dismas|^(talk) 15:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

can we get an update to indicate that she has left charlie sheen. i think it has been well publicized by now that she is no longer with him, even if charlie is still "winning" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.111.192.110 (talk) 14:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Have we got citations to support this? It does neen updating if its verifiable. Here he says he tweeted she left and then he tweeted she had returned - http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20471483,00.html - Off2riorob (talk) 14:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

She is an angel; Sheen called her a 'goddess' (what he called his live-in lovers). -- AstroU (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

New NEWS, for future editing:

Headline-1: Charlie Sheen's Other "Goddess" Natalie Kenly Defends Him Against Bree Olson’s Fury Over HIV Revelation

• http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/charlie-sheens-ex-natalie-kenly-defends-him-against-bree-olson-w158045

QUOTE: "Standing by her (former) man. Charlie Sheen's one-time "goddess" girlfriend Natalie Kenly...gave an interview to Entertainment Tonight on Thursday, Nov. 19, in which she denied accusations made against the Two and a Half Men star by Bree Olson, Sheen's other former live-in lover back in 2011." -- AstroU (talk) 01:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.

It's Right in Wikipedia

On March 1, 2011, Sheen was concurrently living with pornographic actress Bree Olson and model and graphic designer Natalie Kenly, whom he collectively nicknamed his "goddesses".[79][80][81][82][83] Olson left Sheen in April 2011, and Kenly left in June 2011.[84][85]

Please see: Charlie_Sheen#Family_and_relationships for reference footnotes Dick Kimball (talk) 10:49, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

article claim

Resolved

Olson's maternal grandparents were Ukrainians who migrated to Texas then Fort Wayne, Indiana when she was two years old.[5] She has stated that her biggest hero is her grandmother, who was a concentration camp survivor.

In the citations provided I am only seeing that her grandmother is from Ukraine and nothing in the current citations about any concentration camp? Off2riorob (talk) 12:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be correct now, I may have miss-read the citation. Off2riorob (talk) 09:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Ukrainians or Jews from Ukraine? If first why did she said that:

"My grandparents were immigrants and Holocaust survivors originally from the Ukraine. They brought a very strong work ethic to America and my grandmother instilled every bit of that into me."

http://madifonbyfashion.blogspot.pt/2015/05/bree-olson.html#sthash.1yICcPBw.dpuf

Marcus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.237.39.116 (talk) 11:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The addition of images

Images should only be added if they provide encyclopedic context per WP:NOTGALLERY. They should have some relevance to what is discussed in the text since we already have one that identifies the subject. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I've said it before and I'll say it again Bree is a very well-known celebrity due to her brief association with Charlie Sheen. Most celebrities have more than one image on their articles during different occasions as long as free images are available at the commons and Bree should not be an exception. Plus the "career" part of Bree Olson mainly deals with events that occurred in 2006-2008 during her adult industry career, which was also when the image was taken. Bree is no longer in the adult industry right now. The image is in line with the content of the subheading. Overwhelming precedents show that Wikipedia biographies are generally written in such a manner. Thank you!--TheBigNatural (talk) 19:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Your position that fame or notability confers the addition of more pictures is not supported in any policy or guideline. The argument that the photo is relevent because it is from a 2007 event because the article talks about her career in general is tenuous. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

If you are so insistent to delete images then I suggest you take a look at Britney Spears, Chad Ochocinco, Selena Gomez and delete all the images other than the profile image. The overwhelming precedent is to have more than one image to illustrate the individual's career arc as long as the images are available and not in violation of copyrights.--TheBigNatural (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Haven't other editors been reducing the images in the Spears article? [4][5] Which you happen to revert. Do you plan on continuing the edit war through those articles also? Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a case by case thing. Britney Spears had too many images from the exact same tour. I agree with the editor's assertion that there were too many images on Spears' article but we disagreed on what images to keep. It wasn't an edit war. We had a disagreement that has been resolved.--TheBigNatural (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I agree with Morbidthoughts. The disputed image is unnecessary as it doesn't provide readers with any extra information or aid their understanding of the text. Epbr123 (talk) 11:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It shows her career progression. If you look at Britney Spears article, every image is of her performing. Should we delete all of them except the profile? If you look at Chad Ochocinco article, every image is of him on the practice field. Should we delete all of them too?--TheBigNatural (talk) 12:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:Other stuff exists. Nymf _hideliho! 14:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Plus, the images of Britney performing provide more info than the pictures of Bree Olson standing doing nothing. The Chad Ochocinco article is much longer than Bree's, so the superfluous images are more tolerable. Epbr123 (talk) 14:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Ochocinco has 4-5 images on the article and his article is not 4-5 times longer than Olson's. Your argument falls flat. The images of Spears are all the same, some even from the same tour.--TheBigNatural (talk) 15:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The extra 3 Ochocinco images also all illustrate things discussed in the article from the MNF game to the preseason game to the Patriots trade. The Selena article images seem like overkill. 15:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there any reason why you keep adding that particular walking picture, when there are other pictures in the commons that addresses some of the concerns raised, particularly this one. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

No the selection of images are pretty arbitrary especially when the subject have multiple images available from the commons. It seems like you have a personal vendetta against the image I chose for whatever reason.--TheBigNatural (talk) 16:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not personal. It's policy based. Do you not understand why that Adam & Eve signing picture is more relevant to what is discussed in the article? Your saying that the selection is arbitrary implies that they are interchangeable and don't add anything of value to the article besides being eye candy. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see how they are different. The other image you can't see her face. Plus they are within the same time span of her career. Under your rationale, you should delete almost all the images on Wikipedia not in the lead profile. There is no precedent or policy for such a drastic change.--TheBigNatural (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You don't see how her signing appearance for Adam & Eve is somewhat relevant to "She was a contract performer with Adam & Eve from 2007 to 2010"? No under my rationale, non-lead images should illustrate something being discussed. I am fine with the Britney and Ocho cinco images and reduced the selena gomez ones. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Bree is now a Pornography Critic, but her views on it are critically non-traditional.

Bree, especially in this recent video is both warning young girls about the dangers of pornography and the permanent social stigma attached, but also believes there is nothing inherently morally wrong with the act of performing in porn itself at the time of performance. Rather that the industry is run by "faceless men" and the female performers are unwittingly destroying their reputation in society for life. She feels as if society currently sees her(and other ex-porn stars) as morally similar to a pedophile. She appears to be saying the industry is corrupt, specifically saying that faceless men make money off her videos still and she doesn't see a cent. She also clearly regrets her loss of privacy that she now realizes occurred. How can this be well reflected in the article itself? Obviously something needs to go in the header. Is she is a "Critic of Pornography" or is she "Critical of the workings of the Pornography Industry"? Not sure how to do this myself because of her unique critical position. Colliric (talk) 02:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Olson's only substantive critique of the industry as a whole appears to be the lack of royalties. I do not see the "faceless men" bit in any of the cited sources. Olson's reference to the "faceless people behind the industry (that) still make millions and face no repercussions" could be interpreted to mean that those individuals deserve to suffer the same stigma and social isolation that she has experienced, but such a reading would be inconsistent with the rest of her article. Similarly, while she clearly regrets her loss of privacy, Olson also states that this is due to the way society now perceives her; there is nothing in her words to suggest she is ashamed of her past actions. Of note is Olson's "biggest regret": Trying to go mainstream, rather than staying in the industry for at least a few more years, which, if nothing else, would have enabled her to save enough money "to live comfortably for the rest of my life." In sum, this is not Hot Girls Wanted. Olson is a critic of the sexual double standard, not of porn itself.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

"Faceless Men" is quite an appropriate summary of that statement she made, as it is simply the traditional form of industrial criticism of mysterious/powerful people in the industry whom are also often critically described as "string-pullers" or "puppet-masters". Making it gender neutral is OK though, but it is by tradition practically gender neutral already. Also she clearly states she thinks the Porn Industry is in fact corrupt, particularly in her statement that Performer Royalties, standard to other entertainment industries, have been denied in the Porn industry, implying a conspiracy or discriminating practices. So it actually easy to interpret her statement in that manner you mentioned, because of her immediate preceding statement implying that she has been wrongly denied payment she would have received had she been performing in another more mainstream acceptable entertainment industry. She is saying they will still make money off her performances/work for years, or even decades, to come, while she likely only got her initial payment for the "days work" and is now therefore struggling financially while others still make money off her image. She IS therefore saying they do not face the same stigmas while making money for years off work SHE DID and not passing a single cent on to her. I agree she has yet to become critical of the action of participating in Pornography, but she IS clearly critical of the industry and it's machinations. Colliric (talk) 10:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

But she didn't use the "faceless men" term, or your other colorful terms such as "string-pullers" and "puppet-masters". I'm not suggesting that we edit her remarks for political reasons—you are. It is not acceptable to alter direct quotes.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)