Talk:List of actors in gay pornographic films/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 8

RfC Use of the Adam Gay Video Directory as a reliable source

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Is the Adam Gay Video Directory (in its various editions; eg. OCLC 422131336, OCLC 227972053, OCLC 38084116, OCLC 38083956) suitable as a reliable source to confirm inclusion of a pornography actor on the List of male performers in gay porn films? A significant number of entries rely on this catalogue as an independent source of information.—Ash (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

—Ash (talk) 22:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I suggest that if there are no objections raised within 7 days then WP:SILENCE applies.—Ash (talk) 13:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
  • No evidence that anyone treats this publication as WP-reliable source for factual information. The citations provided show no more than that the publication is used to describe characteristics of the market, in the same way that Flat Earth journals may be cited to describe the beliefs of flat-earthers. Quoting reviews to demonstrate what is found appealing in the market is not the same as using the magazine as a source for factual information about living persons. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Making emotive comparisons to the beliefs of flat-earthers does not help validate your view. In direct contradiction to your statement are the real-world facts. I am looking right now at "Porn studies" and "Countervisions", they use the AGVD precisely for "a source for factual information about living persons", not just market characteristics (taking the example further, in "Porn Studies" p.233, Williams uses it as the only reliable source to define Brandon Lee as a porn star, which is the whole point of how the source is used in this article under discussion).—Ash (talk) 15:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment In what way is the Directory being used as a reliable source to confirm inclusion of a pornography actor on the List of male performers in gay porn films? Is it being used to verify credits for actors already deemed notable by other sources? That would seem fine. Or is it being used to establish notability for actors? In that case, what criteria does the book use for inclusion of videos/actors? If it's every man who's appeared in gay porn film, and/or every gay porn film, that would be much too broad a reference to use for notability. Also, is there any relation to the (I think now defunct) Adam Film World Video Directory? Шизомби (talk) 10:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
    • The AGVD has the same author and publisher as the AGWVD you refer to (see J. C. Adams). Though the publication you refer to may not be recently re-published, previous editions may still be suitable as a source for information. I agree with your note that appearance in such a directory does not necessarily demonstrate notability, the issue arose due to such footnotes being automatically deleted as an editor thought that it should be dismissed as a source.—Ash (talk) 09:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Besides the references above, J.C. Adams' "Adams Report" for radvideo.com and the AGVD were also cited in articles by Jeffrey Escoffier in the Journal of Homosexuality and Qualitative Sociology and in a paper for a Rutgers University sociology graduate student conference http://sociology.rutgers.edu/DOCUMENTS/conf_papers/Meunier_Etienne.pdf http://sociology.rutgers.edu/constructingknowledges.html. Language Log cites it[1] but for other reasons. Pornography and Sexual Representation: A Reference Guide Volume II by Joseph W. Slade says "For information on currently popular directors, the scholar must consult Adult Film World and Adult Video News" (676) and "Adult Film World directories of heterosexual and gay films are also useful" (670). This is going a bit afield, but kind of interesting, regarding the eight member ("Uh huh huh huh") Resale Activities Board of Review of the United States Department of Defense created by Rep. Paul Broun's Military Honor and Decency Act, "Anti-porn groups decry exchange sale policy" http://www.navytimes.com/benefits/stores/military_magazines_070911w/ it had found the Adam Film Guide and Adam Gay Video to be sexually explicit http://prhome.defense.gov/docs/DoD%20Resale%20Activities%20Board%20of%20Review%20Recommendations.pdf See also here http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/resaleboard1.html (not the most reliable site, admittedly). I'm not really sure why the Pentagon thought a review board to review pornography to determine if it is pornography was (1) a good idea (2) a good use of money and manpower. It's also curious that Adam Gay Video, Lesbian Licks, Lesbian Letters, etc. had apparently been being sold in military exchange services, commissaries and U.S. Navy ships' stores up until that point. And a queer horror movie like "Curse of the Queerwolf" was determined not to be sexually explicit and thus OK to keep selling to the military. The reviewal process is further rendered silly by the fact that the stores were asked to submit for review material they were selling that they thought was pornographic. So pornography, that had been determined to be pornography, was then determined to be pornography. I wonder if they read and watch things all the way through? Together or separately? Single-sex or co-ed board? Шизомби (talk) 12:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

See also

These are important articles to read and understand before editing this list or writing an article about a porn performer.

|}

Discussion

Why are those instructions not at the top of this talk page to guide editors? Because User:Benjiboi manually archived them without discussion in July 2009. I suggest we replace them, update them if necessary after the RfC is finished, and ensure that they are followed to avoid future unnecessary conflicts. Is there support for this? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

  • I support putting this back, either here at the top of the talk, or better, using the newer technology of an WP:Editnotice (which would go at List_of_male_performers_in_gay_porn_films/editnotice) Once the RfC comes to rest, it could be updated to reflect the outcome. Note particularly that these instructions do not preclude all redlinks. ++Lar: t/c 16:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, except for the bolded part which says "There should never be redlinks in this article". ;) The preference seems to be for unlinked articles rather than red links. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Good point. I was focusing on the upper part where it says "In order for a name without an article to be included here, there must be a reasonable expectation that an article will be written about the person"... that's the usual wording to justify redlinks but coupled with the bolded text you highlight, it implies a name can be listed (if there is such a reasonable expectation, but no article) but it needs to be bare text, not a redlink. Apologies for my confusion. ++Lar: t/c 17:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Opposed. For the same reasons we don't have extensive instruction creep on every talkpage. These instructions could be useful but are misleading as before I started sourcing this list there were no sources, that was the problem. And users who utilized the talkpage were not the problem. And I was the one who started the editnotice. So the scheme to somehow infer that I'm in any way not interested in having sources is quite misplaced and no, I see no need to have extensive instruction creep on this page for users who generally would never see it. There is some possible language that may prove helpful but frankly it falls in the TLDR category as well as the On-talkpage-never-saw category. -- Banjeboi 19:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
    • As usual, your claims are easily proven to be false. Please see this version of the talkpage from July 2007. The editing instructions existed on that page well before this, but please take note of the section on that page entitled "Criteria for inclusion" which appears to contain a rough consensus to include only existing articles. Benjiboi appears to have inadvertently missed about a year out of the archive, but having just read through the talk page history, I can assure you that the topic has come up several times before (for example, this comment from Bastique), but this is where it ended up. As you can see from this contemporaneous version of the article, the sources were in the linked articles (as with most stand alone lists). (Prior to this, the list was actually sourced, but to a single gay porn site.) Each section begins with the banner below:
  ********************************************************************************************************
   PLEASE DON’T WIKILINK NAMES UNLESS THERE IS AN ARTICLE ON THE PERSON AS A PERFORMER IN GAY PORN FILMS.
  ********************************************************************************************************
    • What happened to that consensus and the banners that represented it? Oh look, Benjiboi deleted them all. How surprising! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
      • <yawn> More arm-flailing and revisionistic mythologizing of events all pointing out how someone else must be at fault and therefore your deletions and edit-warring is justified. You've been over-inflating concern about BLP BLP BLP! violations and demanding sources yet now you wish us to believe that the list was fine then and all sourced to one site was the way to go. Please see our policies about verifiability and BLP so you come into compliance with community standards. Your eagerness to edit against consensus, disrupt and do anything but actually work with other editors here - not to mention the constant WP:Drama are tiresome. Perhaps editing in areas on subjects you actually approve of would cause less disruption for all concerned. -- Banjeboi 22:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
        • Benjiboi, please read what I wrote again when you are less sleepy. You seem to have misinterpreted my very brief summary of the article's history as some kind of endorsement of how the article was at one time sourced. What you may wish to address is the fact that you removed the editing instructions form the talk page (without discussion, although no one seemed to have noticed at the time), edited the hidden comments that appeared in every section of the article to remove the prohibition of red links, and neglected to archive several relevant discussions (which may have been inadvertent). We seem to be in the midst of an RfC about something that actually was consensus until you decided it wasn't. I have provided the diffs for anyone who cares to look, yet to seem more interested in continuing your storyline about how I am the cause of the problem. Any comments on those edits? They were only 6 months ago. Did you forget that you had done that? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
          • DC, you appear to be apportioning blame for something, though I must be missing the point. From what you have said here, I cannot see that you actually have a complaint against Benjiboi. I suggested a RfC on redlinks several times above because I failed to see where a clear prior consensus was; I still fail to see it. However it doesn't matter that much as we now have a RfC which may provide a consensus... in the meantime banging on about Benjiboi seems pointless, unless you are prepared to use a real dispute resolution process, hopefully far away from this talk page. Ash (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
            • Ash, until I walked through the talk page page history today, I was unaware that Benjiboi was responsible for the current situation, so I haven't really been banging on about him for very long. If your comments are going to be mainly editing advice for me, perhaps you can leave them on my talkpage instead of here. If you cannot see how the editing instructions above, the linked discussion and the large banner before every section reflect consensus, I'm not sure what more I can say... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
          • Delicious carbuncle, it's hard to take you seriously when you clearly are inventing a past that never happened, alleging that I'm the source of all the problems, well, that's just giving me a lot of credit i guess. I did however completely overhaul the list to source and explain every entry and why it potentially should be a part of the list. You seem to be missing that this list, for years has been various folks vandalize and add nonsense and others attempt to clean it up. Meanwhile discussions on the inclusion has gone back and forth. Until I overhauled the entire thing this list had no sources and that was the main complaint at the AfD prior to your AfD. It's a large list and among the issues it showed was that dozens of people who certainly met GNG and/or Pornbio didn't have articles or the articles were in a poor enough state - and little effort to verify their accuracy ensued - so their articles were deleted without editors actually looking for sourcing. I have been the main clean-upper here and efforts to continue doing so have been largely productive and peaceful except when you and your offsite "comrades" have disrupted with one non-sensical diatribe after the next. OMG a wikilink points to the wrong person!!! Sky .. is ... falling! Instead of just fixing it you create and stir drama - but to give credit you are good at it, you're so good at it you did so at at least admin boards until myself and other editors actually did the work to clean it up. This parallels your efforts in the area altogether. a lot of arm-flailing and accusations and drama while others simply do the clean-up work like mature editors do. -- Banjeboi 23:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Most of the above is about html comments at the top of the wikitext (which is appropriate). The proper editnotice is not at the link Lar gives, but at:

and there is a discussion about it and a change I requested at:

*That's* where admonishments re redlinks et al belong.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Protected

I've put full protection on this article for three days. AniMate 03:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

shocked, simply shocked at what version it was saved at :) Ikip 05:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not surprised at the incorrect protected version. The RfC above is active and it is transparently obvious that the version to be protected is the one before the deletions the RfC discusses were made. When the RfC is complete then the article can be changed either way. The BOLD guidance used as a justification for making the edits was not followed when the deletions were reverted. BRD is a great policy, shame it or the normal conventions on reaching a consensus have been swept aside using BLP as a vague excuse when the whole point is that these are redlinks, NOT links to the wrong BLPs. Sorry AniMate, you have applied your power in a way that damages consensus building here. Ash (talk) 10:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Let's thank Animate for stopping the edit-warring which is what they were suppose to do, no judgement should be applied to which version was saved - it's a 50/50 chance it will be done right and just about guaranteed somewill will be happy and others not so much. -- Banjeboi 11:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Protection is to stop the edit-warring. The right or wrong version matters not to that end. For those edit-warring to remove the material certainly think the right version was saved but at least they are on notice that the article is indeed being watched. -- Banjeboi 11:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Benji. Of course this is the The Wrong VersionTM. I'm just glad things are being talked out on the talk page. AniMate 17:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I guess the protection has expired. Judging from Benjiboi's edit summary of "restoring per talkpage; as many of these are listings that are clearly notable removing them wholesale remains disruptive and tenditious," perhaps it should be extended as nothing appears to have changed. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
That has been reverted. Benjiboi needs to get consensus FIRST before restoring redlinks. He knows better. ++Lar: t/c 19:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually you both know better although your disingenuous concept of protecting your preferred version after encouraged to do an RfC first then edit-warring to delete items that are clearly notable, And then deflecting away from the actual notability issue in every way but actually addressing the claims that had been asked then answered. Guess we should expect more WP:Drama but I certainly hope not. You were Bold, were Reverted, and now the RfC that you had to be forced into doing is now discussing. Please show consensus that notable people whose articles would certainly not be deleted should be deleted from the list. -- Banjeboi 21:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
And I've reverted you, Benjiboi, per Lar and BLP. You also attempted to discard a large batch of clean-up of the refs that I had done earlier today. As Lar says, you know better. Jack Merridew 21:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
First off my username is Benjiboi, if you can't use that then please don't use anything. Secondly you edit summarized BLP but no BLP issues have been shown to exist. So now you're simply edit-warring to re-introduce a BRD that is controversial and contested. -- Banjeboi 21:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I added the five characters; no offense was intended. Jack Merridew 02:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Benjiboi, can you please stop with all the bad faith, accusations, hyperbole, and analysis of people's motives? My goal was to establish a revision with the red links removed and the lost references fixed by the bot. Once that was done I stopped editing entirely and made it known that I would not be reverting anyone. I merely suggested that the protection be extended. I don't care which version is protected. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Please check your mirror to see where this drama and nonsense is coming from. You were encouraged to start an RfC but instead started edit-warring, this is the same pattern you have engaged here in the past when not claiming the sky is falling down. Your dramatics and personal attacks are disruptive and unneeded. Please don't pretend your offsite activities against me have no bearing on the developments here. You've caused disruption now more level-headed and less emotionally-involved editors can see if notable performers should be deleted from the only list for them. Pleading for me to allow your deletion spree to go unchecked will be given the same due consideration as your veiled threat to continue harassing me. -- Banjeboi 21:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
This is tiresome. Which offsite activities are you referring to? Please supply links and evidence that I am the person making any offsite remarks. What "veiled threat to continue harassing" you? If you believe I am harassing you presently, please take it to the appropriate noticeboard and stop making accusations here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
So to be clear you are denying you have ever made any veiled threats to continue harassing me if I didn't accept your "offer" on ANI. And your denying you have discussed me/my work/ this list in any offsite forum , specifically Wikipedia Review? If so that would indeed be bold. In summation you have made bold controversial mass deletions and they were reverted and you have been asked to stop deleting, and the proper response in a collegial environment would be to cooperate with such requests rather than deflect or otherwise avoid addressing the content issues and claiming problems exist when they do not. -- Banjeboi 22:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I have asked you several times now to stop impugning my reputation here by trying to associate me with Wikipedia Review. Stop doing so. I have asked you to provide what you refer to as a "veiled threat to continue harassing" you. Either do so, with diffs, or stop making accusations. Again, if you think I am currently harassing you, either take it to the appropriate noticeboard or stop alluding to it. I have had enough of this nonsense. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Both of you, but especially Benjiboi, comment on content, not contributor. Or this will have to go to AN/I, again. And if you must edit war, Benjiboi, at least don't undo the reference cleanup, eh? ++Lar: t/c 22:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Lar, sorry but you are missing that I was following BRD, the refs can fixed as needed, no one is arguing against that. And the commenting on contributors? DC has done so at seemingly every opportunity to malign, this is likely, in part, that there is no actually policy rationale for this disruption. Only by trying to paint me as the problem does the issue stay off the fact that notable entries should never be removed and degrading the list by disruption and distraction is their only recourse. This has gone on for months and any issue could have been resolved without their "help" and with far less drama. -- Banjeboi 00:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
But your actions are the problem. A good part of it anyway. Here, and elsewhere. Specific to this matter: In BLP cases, when there is a dispute about something, we err on the side of caution. It is safer to leave the redinks out. BRD is an essay, a practice to be applied sometimes. BLP is a policy, and one that trumps just about anything else not foundational. ++Lar: t/c 01:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually you have again claimed BLP problems and whenever anything that actually is a BLP problem it is quickly addressed without drama and disruption. So no, my actions on this list have been to clean it up, Delicious carbuncle has come along = undoubtably to carry out even more of their special attention in this area with alarmingly bad judgement and do so against consensus, against collegial advice and requests not to and they couple it with inuendo, false claims and ... more drama. This is a problematic cycle they just can't seem to break. My actions were to undo their wholesale mass deletion of dozens of sourced notable entries solely because they didn't yet have an article. This list was the only place those people have on this encyclopedia and this genre is routinely targeted for deletion without due diligence to check for sourcing and notability - they're a pornstar, meh, delete - unfortunately BLP is being waved as a banner yet I would have removed these items myself if there was any truth to it. -- Banjeboi 14:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
If that were true you would stop trying to put redlinks back in, because the redlinks, themselves, are the BLP problem. ++Lar: t/c 17:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
That has been asked, answered and disputed repeatedly - there remains no reasonable interpretation that a wikilink that leads to nowhere is in any way a BLP issue, in fact they were disambiguated to clearly show which entries had their own articles and which didn't. This could have been done without all the drama - like we see here yet again, but sadly the very same editor who led the edit warring started dramatica interuptus rather than simply (and civilly) trying to resolve the problem. This has been their pattern here for months. So no, a wikilink is not a problem, if it were pointing to a BLP article in error that is easily fixable. -- Banjeboi 20:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

No more reverts while discussion is ongoing guys. Anymore and I'll lock the article again. AniMate 01:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I would feel more comfortable reverting the BOLD deleted sourced and notable entries as those campaigning have yet to cite a single reason not to except they apparently don't approve of the profession. If nothing else this would give all the opportunity to easily see the volume and content of these entries. If the consensus is indeed to delete these notable entries then there's no reason those deletions can't wait yet another few weeks. -- Banjeboi 14:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
In fact, explanation has been given, at length, repeatedly. You're just suffering from I didn't hear that syndrome. Further, asserting that it's because "they apparently don't approve of the profession" is false, is distracting from the actual arguments advanced, and generally unhelpful to boot. It's beneath all good Wikipedian to stoop to such rhetoric. It ought to be beneath you as well... ++Lar: t/c 17:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Benjiboi is not alone in his/her interpretation of BRD. It seems common sense that with an RfC running on the topic of "should these redlinks be removed" then BRD can only be interpreted to mean that the article defaults to its original state before redlinks were removed. The blanket changes cannot have a rationale on the basis of an urgent BLP issue either, if any were pointed out then those urgent changes could be made. I made this point above, I have little interest in lengthy rants about the matter, I would hope my opinion would count for something without needing endless repetition to make it seem more important. Ash (talk) 17:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

When one or more editors in good standing feel in good faith that there is a BLP matter, the appropriate temporary response, until the matter is resolved, is to remove the material in question. There is, I assert, a BLP problem with the very use of redlinks. Unless you are challenging my good faith in the matter, pending outcome of a resolution, they need to stay out. Not a debatable point, and administrators are empowered to act "aggressively" to protect BLP victims. If the material is inserted again before a clear consensus is reached here, I will seek a block from an uninvolved administrator for whoever inserts it. I have no doubt whatever that I can easily find an uninvolved administrator who will so block. I hope that clarifies matters. ++Lar: t/c 18:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually the key phrase in all that is "good faith", these were unfortunately not good faith mass deletions of notable entries. Delicious carbuncle was encouraged to seek consensus and to start an RfC - they failed to do either and started edit-warring. And no, no BLP problem with wikilinks has been shown despite repeated the fallacious assertion. -- Banjeboi 20:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Are you questioning my good faith? Really? ++Lar: t/c 20:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
What a pointless argumentative passive/aggressive question. If you feel you have a case raise it at ANI. Making accusations of bad faith does not normally go down well. Ash (talk) 20:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not the master of passive-aggressive behavior that Benjiboi is, to be sure. I was just responding to his casting aspersions on DC ("these were unfortunately not good faith mass deletions"... how does he know this? Why is he casting these aspersions?) rather than addressing the points I raised. As per usual. Now, Ash, do you have anything substantive to add here? My warning stands, if, after the protection ends, this article again has redlinks inserted, I will take this matter to the appropriate place and I have every expectation that whoever does it will be blocked. Further, Benjiboi needs to retract all assertions that others are not operating in good faith, and he needs to do so now, before he says anything else on this page. ++Lar: t/c 23:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
There *is* a BLP concern, as I've expressed before (down a bit, to Major BLP issue). I commented on this more recently at User talk:Casliber#fancruft as a BLP concern (funcruft is not just about Star Trek et al, but is in evidence re porn, too;). Absent very solid reliable sources and BLP articles supported by them, we can not paint names as porn performers (or video game chars). Jack Merridew 23:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Since this is an obvious target for juvenile vandalism, would some forward-thinking admin please permanently semi-protect this page? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I think semi on this page forever is a fine idea. I saw that you reverted this and I'm assuming that the GayVN Awards does not bestow a "Best Circle Jerk" award ;) I've no idea, really. Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I would be slightly cautious about making assumptions in this area without checking, while it turns out that GayVN have not given out a Best Circle Jerk award, some awards can be of a similarly amusing title. For example since 2008 the Grabby awards have given out Best Rimming Scene... Ash (talk) 23:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_actors_in_gay_pornographic_films/Archive_3&oldid=1142768064"