Open main menu

Talk:Pornographic film actor



In the comments about the golden age the section concludes with an exemplary list of actors/actresses from those years Ginger Lynn Allen, Nina Hartley, and Amber Lynn should not be part of that list. While these are Hall of fame performers, they did not start their careers until the early 80s shortly before the move to videotape. I personally believe their first roles were part of the golden age< but none of them were stars until after the age ended —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

ah, has anyone noticed how bad that first line is? i don't think i need to explain what's wrong with it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:04, June 17, 2007

Yes, actually you do, if you want to be sure we understand you correctly. By the way, if you think you can improve it while retaining the content, please do go ahead. That's the point of the Wikipedia, if you find something wrong, please fix it. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

this page should have a large list of current and former pornographic actors and actresses. although I suppose its unnessicary, completeness is always good --maximusnukeage

There is a category for that, Category:Porn stars --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

"Erotic actor" is generally a profound oxymoron.

Says who? -- Zoe
Says everyone but the "Erotic Actors". Why does the modern world not let us call a whore a whore? Is it not possible to be sexually immoral anymore? keep it up people, and the Bush family stays in office.

I wouldn't call it an oxymoron, but ambiguous. Are we talking about actors which are erotic, or actors in erotic movies? Is the term "erotic actor" generally used for the latter? AxelBoldt 23:37 Oct 3, 2002 (UTC)

I feel strongly that this page should be changed to "pornographic film actor;" every person on this page has appeared in pornographic films as their main career path; 'erotic actor' is completely inaccurate; it contains a misplaced modifier with a missing "understood" word. It should perhaps read "erotic film actor," but to say 'erotic actor' simply describes the actors in question as being erotic, which anyone could say about anyone based on their own point of view. For instance, I consider Brad Pitt to be very erotic, but he has never appeared in pornographic films. -EB-

Sadly, he hasn't. <sigh> Zeromacnoo 20:50, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The word "film" is inappropriate, as most porn is shot straight to video. I agree with others that "porn star" is the most appropriate term, and "erotic actor" is a euphemism. -- metamatic 20040719T191800Z
I once again plead for this to be changed to "pornographic film actor" but now I have a more logical reason why. "Erotic" is an adjective and thus expresses a NPOV. These actors are not erotic by definition, but the films they appear in are pornographic by nature.
One man's pornography is another man's eroticism. If you don't believe that, ask Mapplethorpe. ^_^ Koyaanis Qatsi
While I agree entirely, I don't set the definitions of what constitutes a pornograph film performance; that's established by the various governing film commissions in various countires ;) -EB-
I have to agree with EB, this page should be renamed "pornographic film actor", as "erotic actor" is pretty much a misnomer. In this day and age there really isn't any such thing as an "erotic actor" (IMHO), you are either a porn star, a glamour model, or a b-movie actor.
There seems to be a lot of confusion being generated by this. I frequently see additions like Cori Nadine - who is neither an erotic actor or a pornographic film actor, but a glamour/fitness model who appears in various stages of undress from time to time. And, as an aside, I'm frequently frustrated by the entries I see on this page. If we are going to write biographies of porn stars, shouldn't we cover the well known ones rather than ones who are just getting started and/or are completely obscure? When I have to google a name to find out who a so-called erotic actor/porn star is, something is wrong. I think some people are using this page as a means of advertising for their favorite porn star. Just my two bits. Vudujava
Agreed, "erotic actor" is a euphemism and a weasel-word. I suggest "porn star", or for the tirelessly pedantic, "pornographic actor". orthogonal 23:02, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Just finished reformatting and rewriting the erotic actor section, partially to balance the page out and partially to give better information. Comment if you wish.:vudu 00:46, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Residuals and royaltiesEdit

"Porn stars do not receive residuals, royalties, or extra money when scenes are reused and re-released in other features."

Does anyone know what the legality of that is? I always assumed that residuals and royalties were automatic. Also, has there ever been a legal challenge to the practice?

I think residuals, royalties, etc. are a function of unions. Since porn isn't covered by the actors' unions, performers get paid x amount of dollars for doing a scene and that's it. (This is educated guesswork, really; I Am Not A Lawyer or Porn Star(tm).) —tregoweth 05:30, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Residuals, royalties, etc. are a function of a contract. If a performer of any sort agrees to do work for a flat, up front fee, there won't be any residuals or royalties.


The discussion above never really seemed to be resolved. As a result, we have an article called "Pornographic actor", acategory called "Porn stars", and list pages that are "List of erotic actors" or "List of gay erotic actors". We should pick one term, name all of the pages/categories using that, and create redirects from the others.

Given that Wikipedia Style gives preference to commonly-used terms over euphemisms, I vote for porn star over pornographic actor and erotic actor. Neither is commonly used, and the second is way too euphemistic, and likely to be POV. We're dealing with porn here, not erotica. Comments? Zeromacnoo 20:50, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Porn performerEdit

I'm familiar with porn biographies and porn databases, and imho porn performer is the most accurate term, and also the most use by those concerned.

The term "porn star" is very common, but it implies that every performer working in the industry is a 'star'. Nevertheless it would be my second choice.

The problem with the term "porn actor" is that it implies the performers are "acting" having sex (as if they were only pretending having sex, like in an erotic movie for example). This is the main difference between acting and performing. Of course, they do act to some degree between the sex performances, but their profession is not focusing on that.

"One man's pornography is another man's eroticism". NO. Pornography is explicit, erotism never ever shows real sexual intercourse (i.e. no penetration). If it does, it is rated "pornographic". To call Jenna Jameson an "Erotic actress" or even an "Erotic film actress" is wrong, since she actually performs real sexual intercourse.
Magicstrip 18:52, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree but it will be hard to change now lots of articles. --Haham hanuka 20:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
"erotism never ever shows real sexual intercourse"...says you. Eroticism, in the general sense, isn't defined by how much you do or don't see. Look the word up in the dictionary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 03:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

who cares?Edit

seriously, who gives a shit what name you call them? does anyone really think that some college pHd candidate is going to cite a porn article on wikipedia while writing his thesis, then fail because he used the title "porn star" when they aren't really stars? remember this folks: arguing on the internet is like being in the special olympics. even if you win, you're still retarded. so all of you clowns with masters in english, shut the hell up. it's an article, on the internet, about PORN!!! i'd sign this, but i don't know how, and quite frankly, it's not important. it's PORN!!!!

It's four tildes72.187.99.79 (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

POV edit on what is "disturbing" and "alarming"Edit

Article said: "As the pornography industry grows (profits are in the billions of dollars a year in the United States as of 2005), numerous niche and fetish markets have emerged. The vast number of titles has created the need for product differentiation, including, most disturbingly, real or simulated violence such as forced oral sex ("gagging"), simulated rape, or the consensual assault." This is an opinion statement that appears to be added for shock value, and the paragraph (about the growth of the industry) does not really address the subject of the article, which is the actors.

I'm replacing with a more actor-centric statement that still acknowledges niche markets: "While some pornographic actors perform in a wide range of genres, most genres have specialists who achieve most of their recognition in a specific niche market such as bondage or strap-on sex." Frankly, I'm still not sure it's necessary, but it's at least a more applicable statement.

STDs: "However, accurate information about the extent of infection among those in the adult industry is unknown because no organization has ever done proper studies. What little data that does exist is alarming." While I agree, that's a POV statement. My edit: " organization has ever done rigorous studies. The existing data suggests that pornographic actors have a much higher rate of STDs than the general American population."

Also, while I did not change this, I find the use of the phrase "erotic actor" distracting because it was not defined at the top of the article. Without making any judgments on whether it's a valid synonym, it seems more precise to stick with "pornographic actor" to define people acting in pornographic movies. Going by common usage among the performers, "porn performer" would be preferred, but "erotic actor" and "porn star" just have too many grey areas. If the article's named Pornographic_actor, we should be consistent, at least within this article. (I would change this, but since there seems to be discussion, I want to make sure I'm not stepping on consensus toes.) Mana Gement 19:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

And while I'm at it, "The media" has got to go.Edit

If someone disagrees, feel free to revert, but the last section here, "The media" is a discussion of government regulation of hard-core "to protect children," which again has nothing to do with the actors. If there were a section on how the government regulates pornographic actors, it would be applicable. If this section was on how the mainstream media portrays pornographic actors, it would be applicable. But it's not, and I don't have the expertise to write that section. I have deleted it. Mana Gement 20:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is the discussion on STDs lengthier than the discussion of what the title of the article is? Is this really relevant? I'd kill that entire section, or maybe link out to articles on it only. It doesn't define the subject of the article at all.

how porn stars get hiredEdit

i think it would be nice if someone wrote a section about how porn stars get into the business. how the girls are hired and so on, and more on the details of how a porn business operates and functions.

They go around asking if girls would want to star in a porn movie and that is it 00:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Most of them that have internet access go to general adult recuitment sites like- or and put up a profile and wait to be called others take the traditional route of going to a porn (Adult Modeling) talent agancy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adultfyi7 (talkcontribs) 02:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

STD infection ratesEdit

The article notes research showing that porn starts have a "higher rate of STDs than the general American population." and proceeds to give statistics for infection rates of various STDs among porn stars, for example, 10% with hep C. This is incomplete, because it doesn't say what the rate of infection for those same diseases in the general population is. Patiwat 11:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

the "psychopath" section: delete or keep?Edit

Delete.Come on, this is pure ideological propaganda. It doesn't belong here. If "unstable marriages" are a proof of mental illness, then most of the population in industrialized countries is composed of psychopaths. I say erase the whole thing, it's just the outburst of someone trying to prove a point through using a chosen scientific research... without citing any counter-argument --Cosmic Camel Clash 03:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Agreed. Kill the segment as it is just one study by one person. If we had a dozen or more studies all saying the same thing - that porn stars are all pyschopaths - then I'd be inclined to keep. There can be as-yet unnamed flaws within the methodology... I'd wait to see what the study's peer review says before adding it. Tabercil 04:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Also agreed. This appears to be independent research, and is likely a reflection of the editor's own agenda. Grendel 01:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Peter NorthEdit

The article did say PN was renown for prodigious loads of high quality semen. I have no idea what high quality semen is or how (or for that matter why) anyone would know PN's semen is hiqh quality. As such, I've changed it so say at high velocity like the PN article says. I have no idea if that's what the original editor meant but unless you can find a reference to that says PN's semen is HQ please don't reinsert it. Nil Einne 22:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It's really amusing to observe civilians navigate the porn world. Peter North is renown for extremely high quantities of semen. The person speaking in the article was obviously excited by his own writing ability and went over-board. I believe the trick is to drink a lot of raw eggs...


Anyone know how much an a starting porn star makes per scene? Hqduong 01:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Try- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adultfyi7 (talkcontribs) 02:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

List of the pornographic actors with the tallest penisEdit

I know there's a lot of lists on wikipedia, why not another one like that ? I'm sure you can find some good information. 13:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC

A local Montreal paper had said that Lara Roxx had been an exotic dancer and escort previous to attempting xxx films. Escorts usually insist on condom use for sex. I believe the loose regulatory laws re adult actors and testing for AIDS in Brazil at that time was the root of the outbreak in 2004.~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

External linksEdit

Needs a few model relitive links such as- - (how to break into porn.) - (Adult Industry "bible".) - (Where to shoot porn in the US.) Adultfyi7 (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggested linkEdit

Hello, this is a link from a site I own, so I won't link it up myself, but thought I'd mention it since it seems relevant to the topic: What Will Porn Actresses do? - It's a breakdown of the sex acts porn actresses will do on film. Edkohler (talk) 04:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This is an interesting bit of research. However, since it is a self-published source, it doesn't meet the reliable sources standard for external links. In general, Wikipedia is not a good place to publish original research. / edg 04:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

NUMBER of Pornographic Actors?Edit

How many pornographic actor are there in the world? And that in regular occupation / as part-time Job? Worldwide / country-specific? Number of pornographic Men / Women? Ongoing / historical? Homo / hetero? Has someone informations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

For questions on this subject, try Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment. This talk page is for discussing improvements to the article Pornographic actor; it is not a forum for general questions on the subject. / edg 14:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Annoying British PropagandaEdit

.. including the World War II series of erotic German home movies known as the "Sachsenwald films," recorded secretly in Nazi Germany 1941.[1]

  1. ^ Harding, Luke (2004-02-12). "Porn und Drang". The Guardian. Retrieved 2007-04-18. Before submitting his manuscript to his publisher last summer, Kunkel had researched long and hard into one of the most subterranean aspects of the Nazi era - a series of erotic home movies known as the Sachsenwald films, shot secretly in 1941. Officially, pornography was forbidden under the Nazis; in reality, however, the films were not only screened privately for the amusement of senior Nazi figures, but were also traded in north Africa for insect repellent and other commodities. Check date values in: |date= (help)

Can't believe, to read so utterly wrong as written above. Keep your hate propaganda on your "little island", damn bastards. The "Sachsenwald films" are one of many disgusting anti-german propaganda myths, that no serious person would give any attention to. Apparently with exception of Brit elaborates like the Guardian and their author Luke Harding. It's enough to read the Guardian title to get to know the "intellectual" level of such stories. It would not wonder, if the author falsificated what Thor Kunkel had to say, since Kunkel nowadays openly admits, that there's not a single proof that like the "Sachsenwald films" had ever existed. Anyone who wants to verify that should better ask Kunkel directly, instead of relying on Harding. As Harding writes himself, Kunkel regards the "Sachsenwald films" aspect of his book "Endstufe" as black humor! However, what Harding does not mention in his Guardian story is the main issue of Kunkel's book "Endstufe": It's the first time that an author is writing so frankly about the mass (gang)rape of millions of German women and children by members of the advancing Soviet Red Army. Hundred thousands of these rape victims had been murdered after being abused. And that's exactly the reason why "Endstufe" was heavily critisized by leftist, pro-"Liberators" German press and soon rejected from the German book market by its publishers. But I can understand that authors like Harding feel no need to first read what they are writing about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Is this your analysis or do you have an actual citation from a reliable source? If there are controversial analyses, discredited theories, etc, they are nonetheless notable if they can be cited. Even better is to provide refutation (again cited). But removing cited material because you disagree with it or think the source is disreputable is not the way things work here. And personally attacking other editors will get you blocked regardless of the merits of your ideas. DMacks (talk) 21:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a very odd situation, where a possible hoax has found it's way into an article and attempts to remove unproven facts is hindered. My claim for removing the Sachsenwald entry is sheer lexiacal and has nothing to do with the above mentioned politics. There is at this point no way to prove wether the films are from the 40's or not and hence the entry is removed. The discussion has been ongoing in Germany since 2004. Some claim the films are from the 50's, some from the 60's, Thor Kunkel who first wrote about the films in his book "Endstufe" - "Final stage" claims they're real, yet word stands against word. And no other proofs than references to and from "Endstufe" and Thor Kunkel exists. Therefor I claim that the entry is not valid as a lexical entry in Wikipedia. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 15.04.04 Sachsenwald-Filme keine NS-Filme # NAM: Kunkel, Thor; Grassmann, Werner (& 22.),2073576,1518,296007,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dumdumboy (talkcontribs) 19:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Life ExpectancyEdit

I could see no reason for deleting the life expectancy section. If the data has been contradicted by another study why not provide that study as justification for deleting the entry. To my knowledge there is no study that contradicts the information and until one can be produced I see no reason for deleting it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 14:33, May 16, 2009

It's all anecdotal and the source of the information is far from unbiased. Sorry, it stays out. Tabercil (talk) 18:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
It's not anecdotal. The information was compiled from various sources, the main one being (a pro pornography website database). I believe that you are the biased one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually let me go further and show you a more detailed rebuttal. Let's draw from the listing at list of female pornographic actresses by decade for all the porn stars for the 1970s. Toss out those stars for who we do not have birth dates for since we can't do any detailed age calculations for them. That gives us this list:

Andrea True (b. 26-Jul-43)
Annette Haven (b. 1-Dec-54)
Annie Sprinkle (b. 23-Jul-54)
Bodil Joensen (b. 25-Sep-44 - d. 3-Jan-85)
Brigitte Lahaie (b. 12-Oct-55)
C. J. Laing (b. 1-Aug-56)
Claudine Beccarie (b. 14-Jun-45)
Georgina Spelvin (b. 1-Mar-36)
Gloria Leonard (b. 28-Aug-40)
Junko Miyashita (b. 29-Jan-49)
Linda Lovelace (b. 10-Jan-49 - d. 22-Apr-02)
Linda Wong (b. 13-Sep-51 - d. 17-Dec-87)
Lisa De Leeuw (b. 3-Jul-58)
Marilyn Chambers (b. 22-Apr-52 - d. 12-Apr-09)
Mary Millington (b. 30-Nov-45 - d. 19-Aug-79)
Reiko Ike (b. 25-May-53)
Rene Bond (b. 11-Oct-50 - d. 2-Jun-96)
Robin Byrd (b. 6-Apr-57)
Seka (b. 15-Apr-54)
Sharon Kane (b. 24-Feb-56)
Sharon Mitchell (b. 18-Jan-56)
Tina Russell (b. 23-Sep-48 - d. 18-May-81)
Uschi Digard (b. 15-Aug-48)

So, of those 23 names, 7 are dead with their average age at the time of death being 42 years old. Of the remaining 16 who are alive, their average age is 57 years old. Now, how do you square those either of those two numbers (42 and 57) with the 37 years that Reverand Jennings tosses around? You can't... his "study" only shows those who died, it does not account for those who are alive. Tabercil (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I appreciate your responding so in-depth to my reason for wanting to keep the information. However, I believe that you are overlooking some important facts in your rebuttal. First, you cannot do the average age of death of a group of people by including living people. That is not how an "average age of death" statistic is figured. An average age of death can only include those who have died. Note that by your own calculations using only a fraction of the number of porn stars that the article uses (7 in your calculation and 129 in the article) your age of death came close to the article's (42 vs. 37). The article also includes porn stars who lived into the 50-70 age range. So, it is not only using deaths where the person died young. It is including even those who died later in life, just only a small percentage made it that far. I really think that you should reconsider letting this information appear in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Whoa whoa whoa... your own edit to the article said "the average life expectancy of a pornographic actor"... that's different from stating some kind of "average age of death" which is what you're saying on this page. Another item, Jennings lists 129 people; IAFD lists 89,536 entries for performers and directors. Even if we taken Jennings at his word that he wasn't rigging the numbers, he's working with barely more than one-tenth of one percent of the full listings. Trying to derive a conclusion from that small a sample set is folly in my opinion. Lastly, given that the pornography boom really did not get underway until the 1990s, I think it might be premature to try drawing some form of "life expectancy" or "average age of death" figure. I suspect it'd have about as much truth to it as looking at the obituary columns for a few months and coming back with some kind of average life expectancy of someone who plays an MMORPG. Tabercil (talk) 20:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Probably the most famous male performersEdit

From Male performers

John Holmes, Ron Jeremy, Peter North and Rocco Siffredi are probably the most famous male performers in porn films.

I deleted from this sentence the recently added Manuel Ferrara and Christoph Clark, who were promptly restored on the grounds "they both have a long career (~1000 films) and famous at least as the rest)".

My concern is the sentence become less readable as favorites are appended. Neither of these actors has been the subject of a documentary film, and roles in many movies is common for male pornographic actors. Ferrara and Clark may each have much longer filmograghies than John Holmes, but I don't think they are famous (outside of porn fandom), and their inclusion seems like WP:RECENTISM to me.

I have the same issue with the recent addition of Erik Everhard. I'm sure these guys are talented and important, but appending every Harry Reems and Jeff Stryker doesn't help here. Perhaps a list article summarizing notable Male pornographic film actors could be made instead. / edg 14:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I just went ahead and removed the paragraph since they were not supported by reliable sources. The article also does not have a list of famous actresses so why include a bunch of famous actors? Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

interracial actresses taking a paycutEdit

if a white woman sleeps with a black male she will make less money in the future. i heard this on howard stern. can anybody dispute this?Garconsaxon (talk) 06:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I dispute it. You believe everything you hear on Stern? Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

do you have proof it doesn't happen? Garconsaxon (talk) 07:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope. The onus is on you to provide the evidence. From Wikipedia:Verifiability (one of the three core values behind Wikipedia): "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." (emphasis original) Merely waiving your arms and saying it was said on Stern is not good enough for a statement that controversial; you need to prove it was said on Stern. I would suggest checking the archives at and also at for backup. Tabercil (talk) 13:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
The evidence has to be stronger than some person's speculation on the Howard Stern show. Even if he confirmed that it was said on the show, it doesn't verify that the phenomenon actually happens. Morbidthoughts (talk) 13:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
WP:3O here...I'm not seeing specific evidence from a strong reliable source. Extraordinary/unconventional/unexpected claims require better/confirming evidence beyond just "heard it mentioned on Stern". DMacks (talk) 18:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


"though most commercial sex film performers do not regard themselves as prostitutes for various reasons, but rather as artists. Most notably these performers are not paid directly by their sexual partners for the sex, but both are paid through a studio."

this is BS, wouldn't the "producers" often take "roles" in their "videos"??. especially amateur porno.... if the guy who pays money does the role. the pornographic "actress" would say: "i'm not a prostitute!"? ???

what's difference? a prostiute's dignity is way more than those whores..

don't make fun of normal people


if a guy pays for another guy to screw a prostitute, then the prostitute is not prostitute anymore?????????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


The whole article is totally centered around American porn. No, neither the Americans invented porn nor were they the first in anything there. Check out porn history of France, Sweden and Denmark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Besides, it focuses on female actresses and ignores male actors. The 2 pictures on the article are from women. --UltraEdit (talk) 18:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Abortion rates among pornograhic workers?Edit

While the STD rates have been quantified in the porn industry, does anybody know what percentage of female actresses have abortions compared to the rest of the population. I would appreciate any information on the subjectSkreen (talk) 21:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I've not heard anything period about that, and anyone attempting to add such had better have very reliable sources about the numbers first! Tabercil (talk) 21:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


Ok, in California, porn actors/actresses are not "prostitutes". But what about in the rest of the world, including the rest of the 51 States of the US? Because that is only in California. Why is California, center of porn in the US, used as a reference? There is a lack of WP:NPOV here. --Vitilsky (talk) 04:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Are porn performers prostitutes ?Edit

A prostitute is someone who agrees to be paid by a customer specifically to have sex with that customer or, more rarely, with another person of the customer's choice. Pornographic performers, as far as I know, collect money to have sex with each other, i.e. they are both (or all) getting paid. The only niche of prostitution where a similar context is encountered is when the customer pays two prostitutes (or more) of either sex to have sex with one another for the customer's voyeuristic pleasure. Therefore, in that context, pornographic performers in films are doing on screen exactly what the professional participants in live sex shows are doing, i.e. they are the cinematic equivalent of live performers. But none of this qualifies pornographic performers as "prostitutes", because the potential clientele of a genuine prostitute is the general public, while pornographic performers have sex with one another, almost exclusively. (The only exception is the small niche in porn for sex between porn performers and genuine amateurs.) All in all, it would be quite a leap to include porn performers into the category of prostitutes. The attempts to label them as such seem to originate from a moral, rather than a taxonomic, point of view. -The Gnome (talk) 08:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Tera Patrick in Pink.jpg Nominated for speedy DeletionEdit

  An image used in this article, File:Tera Patrick in Pink.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:35, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Jenna Jameson..jpg Nominated for speedy DeletionEdit

  An image used in this article, File:Jenna Jameson..jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:12, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Ron Jeremy..jpg Nominated for speedy DeletionEdit

  An image used in this article, File:Ron Jeremy..jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:12, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

California vs. FreemanEdit

OK, I'll admit I wasn't familiar with this case, which is why after reading this article, I read "California vs. Freeman". In the last section of this article, it states "The State did not appeal to the United States Supreme Court making the decision binding in California, where most pornographic films are made today." However, the article on the case itself says "The State of California unsuccessfully tried to have this judgment overturned by the United States Supreme Court. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor denied a stay of the California Supreme Court's judgment, finding that its ruling was founded on an independent and adequate basis of state law. The full Court subsequently denied the petition for review." As I'm not sure which version is correct, could someone with more knowledge on this subject take a look, or should I just change what appears to be an erroneous entry in this article? Sheriffjt (talk) 00:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

California v. Freeman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Just putting in a link to the article for everyone's ease. Dismas|(talk) 00:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
I moved the content over to the Pornography in the United States article. The global tag was correct and since we have the U.S. article, its more appropriate there. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk)   22:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Autobiographies unnotableEdit

Ladies and gentlemen, the sec on Autobiographies is blatantly unnotable and needs to be purged. With thousands of professional porn stars worldwide, and Internet-era possibilities, every each of them can write and publish a bio nowadays. Wishes, Ukrained2012 (talk) 22:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Autobiographies and BLPEdit

Including names of likely living ppl and labelling them porn film actors without a reliable source is a WP:BLP vio, ie we cannot mention living ppl in this article without a reference♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

You state, User:DMacks, that a blue link is a reasonable substitute for a ref. Please point out where in WP:BLP, WP:RS and WP:V your points are covered as I cant see them anywhere. On the other hand BLP does state that we can "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced" so I strongly advise you not to engage in an edit war where you are inserting the material that has not been referenced in this article and is about living people. You could of course post at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard as well as contribute here but you should do so with the contentious material remaining removed♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 18:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Among the entries you removed, I can't understand how one would be suspicious of "Jerry Butler (porn star)" not being a porn star. Likewise for "Peter North (pornographer)". Ron Jeremy is discussed (with cites) as being a cultural icon and, along with Rocco Siffredi, as being top all-time members of this genre, in the Pornographic film actor#Male performers section. A bluelink is certainly not a substitute for a ref. But I can't see how it's contentious that even for the ones other than the obvious cases I already mentioned you couldn't look at those articles if you doubt, and pull a key cite. They're bluelinked, which means they're notable. If their article supports their notability/identity with cite, you can solve your own problem. If their article doesn't, then that needs to be deleted (and likewise their article itself might be ready for BLP or CSD deletion. Further, many of these books have ISBN. First one I checked was for Spelvin, and both the worldcat and google-books results support the book being about her as a porn-star. So there you external ref supporting the claim. Feel free to check the others and post which specific ones have no links supporting them. DMacks (talk) 18:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
If they are obvious you will have no problems reffing them here then, what I want is a ref that they actors or involved in the porn industry. That is not an unreasonable request and would improve the article as well as making it BLP complaint. And I will add that google books is not a sufficient ref according to our reliable sources policy, what is required is a reliable source. If you cant find it in the blue linked articles those articles should probably be deleted. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 19:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
As an admin I am sure you are aware that the procedure with BLP is to remove first and then add with sources later on. I am making inroads into the list but will say I have not been able to find reliable sources for all the names in the list, indeed no more than 50%♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 19:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't know the specifics of google-books in general, but its "publisher's description" states "her life before and after porn fame". And the subtitle according to both it and the worldcat entry have the cover, which states "erotic icon". Are you asserting that the publisher is not a reliable source for summarizing its publication, or that two independent cataloging sites have been duped into posting an incorrect picture of the cover and fraudulently quoting its publisher?
The policy for BLP is "challenged or likely to be challenged", so you're of course welcome to challenge anything you wish (or suspect that someone might). And I am glad that you are now helping to find cites for what you think is suspicious (and happily for readers who saw what was listed before) finding at least some (though likewise disappointing that others were not found). Reading the edit-diffs is becoming difficult...might be easiest for "in progress" to keep the ones that have not yet been cited as commented-out, and with a note if you were unable to find cite for those 50% fail, so we don't duplicate effort. Again, (and as Scalhotrod notes) there's a bluelink that either does support (in which case copy-paste ref, move on) or doesn't (in which case obviously remove as BLP violation). DMacks (talk) 20:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
And WP:BLPSELFPUB supports using an autobiography for own attributes in general. So that means there's a cite to a WP:RS, unless you doubt the authenticity of the publication itself. DMacks (talk) 20:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Squeak! How are ya? Haven't run into you in ages... As for the Autobiography section, what exactly is the problem? Notability aside, there does not seem to be any question that the people listed are in fact pornographic (current or former, mostly former) actors/actresses. And the books listed seem to be accurately attributed to them. Demanding that every mention of their name in every article just seems not only redundantly unnecessary, but in the case when each is notable and has their own article it seems ignorant of the purpose of a WP:WIKILINK. Also, you need to owe up to the notion that how you are applying BLP policy is via your viewpoint that being associated with porn is negative and/or controversial. Not everyone has that view of the industry. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk)   19:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

If it is a BLP vio it is a BLP vio. And it isnt that clear, I have been through most of them now and readded when I have found a clear ref. If you and or DMack want to change the policies re needing reliable refs for links we have articles for as has been suggested you need to engage in policy discussion but this is not the place for that type of discussion. All I am doing is trying to enforce BLP as it is currently written to ensure BLP compliance. Putting words into my mouth about what I any or may not think of porn is neither helpful nor relevant but I will say I am working to ensure we have good quality, BLP compliant porn articles, I am not trying to remove any porn content or in any way trying to reduce or censure our coverage of porn. BLP compliant porn articles will make our porn coverage better not worse♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree wholeheartedly with your last point AND I thank you for your efforts. My apologies for misunderstanding your intentions. You are a stalwart BLP defender and I fully appreciate that you know what you're talking about in this regard. It just seemed like "adding a third or fourth nail" when one would suffice. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk)   20:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
I have now gone through the list, User:DMacks, the ones I have rejected here may not beBLP compliant in labelling these people as porn workers♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
First two I picked were easy to verify by the cites in their target articles. I copied those refs after reading them (or google-translation thereof) myself. Are you finding that these (and others you rejected) own articles do not mention being pornstars, or that their own articles are BLP deficient in the supporting those claims, or that you could not verify the cited refs for them? DMacks (talk) 20:48, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • This same type of recent "editing" is going on at AVN Best New Starlet Award & List of Asian pornographic actors among several other places. The editor in question here has tried (unsuccessfully) going to BLP/N previously with these kind of concerns, but they have unfortunately returned again recently to continue their previous editing pattern of deleting content that is obviously sourceable or very easily sourceable by simply looking at the Wiki-linked articles themselves. This has been explained to them several times on other talk pages before. Guy1890 (talk) 22:33, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Also, this same editor is now edit warring to blank easily sourced content from AVN Female Performer of the Year Award. 22:54, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
You are free, Guy, to complain at my removing challenged material that is unsourced about living people as per our BLP policyb but you are not free to reinsert BLP violating material, you just need to find and add a ref for every example, its so simple. Why is enforcing BLP unfortunate to you unless you want to see a wikiepdia that is not BLP compliant? That I have given you 6 months to fix the issue is not an excuse for reacting in the way you are doing, inserting unsourced material about living people that has been challeneged already into articles. This is a grave issue and BLP does not state that easily sourced amterial does not need to be sourced. If you want to change the policy I wont stand in your way though♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
To the detractors of my enforcing BLP I would say we have a result here, this is exactly how all our porn coverage in articles with lists of living people should look like♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
It's just too bad that you are unwilling to work in other articles to do the exact same thing that you've been asked to do here...simply look in well-established, well-referenced, Wiki-linked articles to find the citations that you claim to be so concerned about instead of wholesale article blanking & bad faith PRODing. There is no deadline on Wikipedia, especially when it comes to uncontroversial material (simple names of established adult industry performers) that really can't be contested in good faith. Guy1890 (talk) 23:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Have I said I am not willing to help? Nope. I have said I am willing to help, what do you hope to achieve claiming the opposite pof what I say. There is a deadline of now when it comes to BLP challenged material, fortunately I have as much right to decide what is controversial material here as you or anyone else and if I challenge you cannot rebutt me saying it isnt controversial so I cannot challenge it. Your definition of this material as uncontroversial is not relevantas it is ME who is removing the material and thus challenging it. If you think PRODing is bad faith go and say on the PROD page, dont make the claim here though I thought the whole point of PROD is it is never done in bad faith. If these are established adult performers you and I and others will have no problems sourcing them reliably, in that way we wall win and that is all I want to achieve. Your bad faith accusations are not going unnoted, I have to say, but dont hold weight given all i want is for the material to be restored with reliable sources. Its sad though when editors enforcing BLP get called bad faithj editors, and for what? So BLP violating material to be reinserted without sources? ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:54, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "Have I said I am not willing to help?" Yes, in fact, you have said exactly that when you brought up these concerns back in January of this year. You clearly stated (at 02:48 on 17 January 2014): "Please dont ask me to verify or source the info myself as I am not willing to do so". As seen in this thread. You were confronted back then with your disruptive edits, and yet you have returned again to continue along the same, exact path. It needs to stop. Guy1890 (talk) 00:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I was entirely within my rights to say that. I will say I withdrew because I diodnt have the time to pursue the project properly. Anyway it is 7 months on and I have changed my mind, I am willing to help so quoting me back in january isnt much use now in August. Like all of us I have had 6 months to think about this BLP and porn lists issue so dont be surprised I have slightly modified my approach albeit not my commitment to seeing BLP compliant articles. Me demanding BLP complince does not need to stop, what needs to stop is having porn article lists naming living people without reliable sources, i.e. BLP compliance. Claiming that I need to stop trying to make these articles BLP compliant is not a good use of time or a good way to talk to a fellow editor who is doing his level best to improve these articles by making them BLP compliant, thus improving the whole encyclopedia at the same time♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Also, you've very recently stated here: "BLP does NOT state it is my duty to find sources for material". Its obvious what you've been up to here "Squeak". Guy1890 (talk) 00:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Well what I said is true. BLP does not state that, are you denying that BLP does not state this or what exactly? ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
And yes, it is obvious what I am up to. Improving the articles by making them more BLP compliant and thus improving the encyclopedia. Its not fair that we add living people without reliable sources to any articles on wikiepdia when an editor challenges that material. What are you up to here? Are you willing to help make these articles more BLP compliant? ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
@Guy1890, lets let it go for now. This same conversation has spread across several Talk pages and this is the point at which the issue needs to be taken to the Admins so Squeak can defend his actions. We just need to gather our difs and make our case. Seems like you've already got a good start on that above, but I think asking for a Topic Ban is not out of the question and entirely possible. Given the length of time that this has gone on, we have Wikipedia:Long-term abuse at our disposal.
@Squeakbox, care to offer anything to make us believe you're going to act more in the spirit of Wikipedia and stop being disruptive so you can make a point? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk)   01:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
My advice is to go to the BLP noticeboard. You are unlikely to fiond support for the view that living people whose insertion in articles has been challeneged and removed as unsourced BLP violations should in fact be reinserted without bothering with a reliable source. That is not the solution, the solution is to fiond reliable sources and let me do so too instead of wasting my time with threats of admin interbvention to uphold your reading of the BLP policy as not requiring reliable source when it is obvious they are available. Enforcing BLP is not disruptive but opposing its enforcement rather than doing the work of finding those reliable sources might well be construed as being so♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 01:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Upcoming DVDEdit

Articles written about this, if any, might be interesting sources...

--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Main image captionEdit

@SqueakBox, Hey Squeak, I completely understand this edit [1] where you removed the names of the actresses from the photo, but it creates an odd circumstance. The names are credited to the image itself and no one seems to contest that. Furthermore, they are all standing in front of a banner for the pornographic studio that they are work for.

I'm not trying to rehash the List of pornographic actors who appeared in mainstream films ordeal, but given the circumstances it would seem that either we can use the image or not. Having a caption with names or not is irrelevant, the image shows people who may or may not be pornographic actors associated with the article. Either we need references for THAT or not. What are your thoughts? --SChotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

We just need sources that they are porn actresses, I agree that we shouldnt really either source or remove the image but I am trying not to be too harsh in my BLP enforcement on porn nowadays. That they are standing in front of a porn studio's banner is not a reliable source but I am sure they are available and will try to get this fixed today. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 19:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Right, I agree with what you are saying, but the point I'm making is that their names are irrelevant. We could have their names now and it wouldn't make any difference because the actual BLP violation is the use of the image that has them in it. Either we pick another image that's generic and/or has no directly identifiable people in it or we use this one (or something similar) and attribute it properly. Does this distinction make sense? --SChotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, I have now attributed. Of course the proper procedure would have been to remove the image and then restore only when attributing, I'll make sure that happens next time. We can never be too careful with BLP, enforcing it rigorously helps make our porn coverage better. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 19:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Great, now we only have to deal with the potential issue of the image being WP:UNDUE because it features actresses from one particular studio. What are your thoughts? --SChotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Good point. Are there other pics available to balance this one out; we arent restricted to one pic in the infobox. Otherwise we could perhaps pick say 12 actors and actresses and put them all in the infobox and not use this pic at all, or not in the infobox at any rate. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
That is exactly what I was thinking... :) If we do a gallery, I would say that we represent various eras or decades with photos of the more notable actors plus we need to take care to include international actors as well. I think a "group shot" is fine for the main image, but maybe we could find one that better representative of the industry. --SChotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey Squeak, what do you think of doing a collage style main image like the one here. I picked this article at random, but there are many others that use the same format. There are also various articles that list or mention the "top porn stars of all time", but I'll take a shot at a starter list. What do you think?

--SChotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Go for it. I am happy to help with the BLP citing (here), not so confident on my gallery creation skills, but we should get the cites done first. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 18:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

When you cited the image, were there particular cites you chose? --SChotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 15:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposalEdit

I propose that AV idol be merged into Pornographic film actor. "AV idol" is pretty much the Japanese-language equivalent of "porn star", and is an inappropriate term for use in an encyclopedia. The material in that article which is genuinely reliably sourced can easily be condensed and managed within the target article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment Merge isn't a bad idea, though I see no problem having this be a separate article referenced with {{main}} as needed. I think a better merge topic may be Pornography in Japan, as this seems to cover a cultural focus. —Ost (talk) 19:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose AV Idols hold a different status in Japan than pornographic actors do in the rest of the world. Many gone on to expand into different industries whether it be TV, movies, or becoming singers either in Japan or the rest of Asia. Since this article deals with a specific type of actor and the fact that it has a many pages in other languages, I don't think it would be a good idea to merge.Alexaclova112330 (talk) 19:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Ideally both would be included in "pornographic performer"Guilherme Burn (talk) 19:51, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The AV idol page, and more importantly its references, suggest that the Japanese variant is sufficiently distinct that it is reasonable for it to have a separate page; that is, that it is independently notable. Klbrain (talk) 06:31, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Pornographic film actor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Return to "Pornographic film actor" page.