Talk:Jenna Haze

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleJenna Haze was one of the Media and drama good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 27, 2008Good article nomineeListed
May 1, 2021Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article


Good article nomination on hold[edit]

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of January 25, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Mostly well written, but a few things I feel the need to bring up. Phrases such as "She received good grades in school until about junior high school, when she discovered boys and sex." sound, frankly, like every stereotype (or wet dream) about women in porn, i.e. they are nuts for sex from an early age. Same issue with the uncited assertion of "Having always enjoyed pornography, she gladly accepted an offer from Moorehead to participate in a film..." Not much porn would get sold if it was admitted that people usually do it because they need the money. In-line citations that clearly support these views being held by Haze would probably remedy their unsuitability, but it's still iffy. This is a reference work, and using what someone says in fan interviews as verification makes some of the article come off in a promotional way.
2. Factually accurate?: Remember that this article must adhere to the structures of the biographies of living persons policy. Accordingly, there are a couple of places that need a direct in-line citation: The first sentence of the last paragraph of early life asserts haze's specific opinion, and thus needs an in-line cite. Same issue with "Having always enjoyed pornography.." Other than those, the article is very well cited. Great work!
3. Broad in coverage?: Broad and concise.
4. Neutral point of view?: Gives fair treatment to all significant points of view.
5. Article stability? Not the subject of any edit wars.
6. Images?: Provides licenses and source information as necessary. Would anyone mind if I tried a different infobox image though, the current one is hard to see her face in as she is leaning forward?


This close to GA, and is far better than many porn star bios. Thanks for your hard work, and your patience with the currently-slow nominations process. If you have the time and inclination, please consider helping to reduce the GAC backlog by reviewing an article. If you have any questions about the reviewing process, don't hesitate to ask me.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. VanTucky 02:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the silly question but... "in-line citations" means put the reference just after the phrase, isn't it?
Well, I will just point out references about the phrases mentioned:
-"She received good grades in school until about junior high school, when she discovered boys and sex." The reference for this phrase is the reference #4 at this moment, Jenna's bio at AVN.com (Profile: Jenna Haze. AVN. Retrieved on 2007-10-25.). She wrote in the second paragraph of her bio: "I got good grades in school until about junior high school. Then I really discovered boys and sex."
-"Having always enjoyed pornography, she gladly accepted an offer from Moorehead to participate in a film..."In the forth paragraph of the same bio at AVN.com Jenna wrote: "I was at a certain club in Anaheim, California (actually it was my favorite club at the time ) when this guy I was kinda seeing introduced me to his friend who apparently had some connections with the adult industry. They both told me I would be perfect for adult films and asked me if I would like to try it. I had always been a big fan of porn so I jumped at the chance. The very next day I went down to the valley and got my test and the next day after that I was doing my very first scene."
-"When Haze turned 18, she tried stripping for a day, but did not enjoy being a house girl or giving lap dances to men she had to pretend to like, while not making much money".In the 3rd paragraph of the same bio at AVN.com she writes: "Once I turned 18 , I tried stripping for one day but didn't like being a house girl and didn't make too much money so I didn't go back the next day."Also she mentions the same in the [REDACTED LINK - on spam blacklist so ClueBot can't archive].
Hope this helps. Purplehayes2006 (talk) 15:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notes[edit]

For readability, please place any comments or questions pertaining to the hold below rather than within the body of the review. Thank you!

Thank you, VanTucky for your review. As per Purplehayes2006's points, citation were provided, but later in the paragraph. Although, for clarity, I've now placed them at the ends of the stated the sentences as well. I have removed "Having always enjoyed pornography" per your promotional concerns, plus I doubt she was always a big fan of porn. You welcome to change the photo if you know of a better one. If there are any other concerns, we'd be pleased to fix them. Thanks. Epbr123 (talk) 15:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your swift and thorough response. I see you've addressed everything I brought up, so to the best of my knowledge this article now meets the GA standard. I'll fiddle with the image forthwith, but all of the images available are licensed right, so it doesn't matter for GA which one we choose. Great work, and congratulations. VanTucky 03:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to mention: I just came across this article from the Portland State University newspaper that some interesting comments regarding Haze to make. They called her work "refreshing" and placed it in opposition to the industry standard of "peroxide-blonde hair, enormous silicone-pouch racks and an entire case of Revlon upon their visage". Thought that was relevant, so you may want to add it. VanTucky 03:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good news :-). Good work Epbr123 rewriting the article and thanks VanTucky for the review.
About the profile photo. First I want to say that I don't want to bother anyone, VanTucky in particular after take the time and effort to put a new default photo... the current photo is very nice and in my opinion better than the previous one... but I still like this photo of Jenna better. Indeed it is one of my favorite photos of her ever. So I wonder what image you like better and if someone would mind in putting this photo as the image in the infobox.
About the DailyVanguard article I just want to point out that this article talks about AVN 2007 (celebrated in January 2007), and even when at the top of the article it says: "Current Issue: Wednesday, January 23, 2008", just below "By: Robert Seitzinger" there is a the black line (highlight the line with your mouse cursor if you can't see anything) that says "Issue date: 1/19/07 Section: television and Culture". So just wondering if the date should be changed in the reference entry of our article (right now is January 23, 2008). Purplehayes2006 (talk) 15:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I put a synthesis tag on the Vanguard sentence because it does not accurately summarise this blockquote from the vanguard: "The only really deserving award of the night was Jenna Haze's victory for best oral sex scene. Haze is easily one of the hottest young starlets to surface in the past few years, and her work with other natural B-cup, long-haired brunettes such as Aurora Snow and Gauge is really refreshing. They prove that it doesn't take surgical enhancement or three hours of makeup to make a great sex scene... " I'd probably put the quote near Darkside since it is about her Darkside award. If the conclusion is more of her general line of work, then I'd add some citations (like avn reviews) to support opinion-based conclusions. Vinh1313 (talk) 20:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've removed the statement for the time being as I'm not sure how to deal with it. The only other source I can find is an opinion given by Howard Stern at [1]. Although, I'm not totally convinced that the summary of the Vanguard article was inaccurate, as it also made statements such as "This year saw a lot of disappointing victories and a disheartening return to tradition. The last few years have seen awards given out to starlets that have deviated from the short, curly peroxide-blonde hair, enormous silicone-pouch racks and an entire case of Revlon upon their visage." Epbr123 (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's probably better that way. Including praise for Jenna based on an editorial (or reviews) would open the door for having to include criticisms in order to maintain NPOV. Vinh1313 (talk) 21:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article lead[edit]

This is listed as a "Good article" so could someone add some summary content to the lead to negate the need for a "Short lead" tag? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otr500 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2018[edit]

The link in reference 18 is permanent dead link, and can be swapped with the following link which is a working article about the topic. Hitalicktwice (talk) 12:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done DannyS712 (talk) 05:39, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2020[edit]

Reference 18 leads to a 404 page, I've found similar content in the following link: https://ispa.co.il/adult-film-industry-might-determine-the-victor-in-hd-dvd-format-wars/ FutureBoi (talk) 13:54, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Jenna Haze/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Starts GA Reassessment. The reassessmment will follow the same sections of the Article. --Whiteguru (talk) 01:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 

Result: Delisted. Legitmate concerns, no opposition or improvements made. --Whiteguru (talk) 00:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Article was listed GA on January 27, 2008, and assessed against the following depreciated SNG :

WP:PORNBIO
WP:PORNSTAR

The following criteria are relevant only to people involved in pornography (and should not be raised with regard to actors and models outside the pornography industry):

  • The person has won a well-known and significant industry award. Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration.
  • The person has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography; starring in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature; or being a member of an industry hall of fame such as the AVN Hall of Fame, XRCO Hall of Fame or equivalent.
  • The person has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media.

(RfC Closed 25 March 2019 Remove.)

Reassessment is now done against GA Criteria and consideration of meeting: WP:BASIC, WP:BLP, WP:NACTOR, WP:ENT, WP:GNG

  • Lede mentions "after Missy". It is not clear whom this is referring to, when examining Reference 1
  • Reference 5 does not mention Jenna Haze Darkside
  • Reference 6 redirects to a default page for Excalibur Films
  • Links to Jill Kelly Productions go to an article about Jill Kelly (actress). Jill Kelly Productions is one sentence on this page.
  • Reference 13 is a dead link.
  • Reference 16 is not a reliable source. It promotes her own website.
  • Reference 31 is a dead link
  • Reference 34 goes to a hijacked link.

Pageviews

  • Last 90 days Pageviews: 81,525
  • Daily average: 896
  • Programmable Search Engine goes to Jenna Haze (lesbian) and Jenna Haze on Apple Music; a bit odd.


Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  • Paragraph 3 in Career repeats links to Jill Kelly Productions MOS:REPEATLINK states that one link is sufficient.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
  • See above
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
  • See above
2c. it contains no original research.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
  • Reference 14 mentions 'nomination for best feature adult entertainer'
  • Reference 9 mentions 'Female Performer of the Year.' (2007) She wins awards for best oral sex, best group sex and Best Vignette Release.
  • Claim to fame is the first Blu-ray release of adult material. See Reference 15
  • A number of adult awards in 2008, and shares 11th annual Adult Nightclub and Exotic Dancer Awards


3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  • The focus is for adult entertainment.
  • References don't give any work after 2009, sites like Redtube and Xtube carry her video and productions.
  • It is difficult to ascertain what notability this person has outside an x-rated environment.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  • First created in 2004, 937 editors.
  • Page has gone to semi-protection 2014, 2015 (twice), 2018, 2020, and is still under that protection.
  • Page Considered at risk of repeated vandalism
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
  • Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.
  • Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Generic license.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment.

Unstable page, unreliable sources reported, and lacking notability in mainstream media.

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.

DOB[edit]

On Jenna Haze's verified official twitter account, she lists her full DOB [2] of February 22, 1982. @Sangdeboeuf insists on only including her year of birth. We had a discussion here User Talk:Sangdeboeuf#Recent_revert but were not able to reach an understanding. I'd appreciate other experienced editors providing their input to reach a consensus on whether her full DOB should be excluded or not. IPIPIPIP (talk) 06:19, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated on my user talk page, not all verifiable info needs to be included. It's fine to just list the birth year whether the subject objects or not, especially if the subject is borderline notable as determined by coverage in independent reliable sources. Virtually all the independent sources here are porn industry trade websites, making the subject's notability borderline in my opinion. The onus is on those wanting to include the material to establish consensus for inclusion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:29, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Twitter verification is no longer a guarantee of authenticity since anyone can now pay for a blue checkmark. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Her Twitter verification states that it's a legacy verified account under the old protocol prior to being able to pay for a blue checkmark. The basis for you disputing the inclusion of her full DOB is your opinion of her being borderline notable which I don't believe is correct. Up until 2021, this article was listed as a Good Article which takes into consideration notability. "Erring on the side of caution" is also not applicable here since the citation itself is not merely an isolated third-party source independent of the subject, and is in fact the subject themselves disclosing the information to the public. In my view, there's no justifiable reason for you to remove its inclusion. IPIPIPIP (talk) 06:58, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken regarding the subject's Twitter verification (although I don't see "legacy verified" listed at https://twitter.com/jennahaze). However, the fact that they once tweeted out their birthdate has no bearing on whether we decide to exercise caution under WP:BLPPRIVACY. Good Article status is itself not an indicator of notability, and the most recent GA assessment specifically said the subject was lacking notability in mainstream media. Virtually all the "independent" sources here are porn industry trade websites, which exist to promote the porn industry, not report impartially on it. Therefore WP:BASIC seems just barely met if at all. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:46, 29 January 2023 (UTC) edited 13:22, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You need to click on the blue checkmark for it to appear. It's also the twitter account linked to her official website [3]. And the reference is not limited to her tweeting it out just once. Her birthday February 22 is literally listed on her main profile page [4]. She has also tweeted her birth year multiple times in addition to her entire combined birthdate. Your desire to exclude it from the article due to possible borderline notability when the subject of the biography themselves repeatedly discloses and publishes the information on their official social media is unprecedented as far as I'm aware. Excluding the full DOB in this case seems more to be a judgement call than an absolute necessity based on clearly demarcated guidelines, so at the very least, I respectfully ask you be open to reconsidering after assessing the totality of circumstances. IPIPIPIP (talk) 08:15, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained on your user talk page, different sources should not be combined to extrapolate the date of birth. Your proposal to combine tweets listing the subject's birth year with her profile listing the month and day amounts to WP:OR. Editing frequently requires that we use good judgement. I have assessed the totality of circumstances as far as I am able. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:28, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-read what I wrote. There's a single combined tweet that includes her full DOB [5] which is basically identical to the example ("today is my 50th birthday") provided for in the BLP policy [6] for self-published sources. IPIPIPIP (talk) 08:44, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was responding to your statement, the reference is not limited to her tweeting it out just once. Her birthday February 22 is literally listed on her main profile page. She has also tweeted her birth year multiple times. Sources like these that do not include the full date of birth and/or birthday plus age should not be combined to extrapolate the full birth date per WP:DOB. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:57, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You brought this to my attention regarding Tory Lane and I accepted it, and is the reason why I made a point to finish off the quoted sentence ...in addition to her entire combined birthdate which is mentioned entirely in a single source. Other sources are supportive/supplemental and I'm not extrapolating the full DOB from them for this article since the primary cited source that I've previously mentioned and shared multiple times already completely satisfies the criteria provided in the BLP policy. IPIPIPIP (talk) 09:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BLP involves more than whether a given source supports a given piece of information. No one is disputing the authenticity of the tweet. But for reasons of privacy and notability, not all verifiable information needs to be included. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:09, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't demonstrated or justified why it should be excluded. There is no privacy issue since the subject of the biography herself has publicly published her DOB in numerous places. As for notability, the article has been covered by a variety of sources including CNBC, Las Vegas Weekly, Complex, Revolver, and others. As I've mentioned before, your desire to exclude her full DOB from the article due to debatable borderline notability when the subject of the biography themselves repeatedly discloses and publishes the information on their official social media is unprecedented. IPIPIPIP (talk) 10:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Haze has only published her full DOB in one tweet as far as I'm aware. The subject lacks notability in mainstream sources as mentioned at Talk:Jenna Haze/GA1. I would not describe Complex or Revolver as mainstream. Privacy must always be a consideration with BLPs: the standard for inclusion of personal information of living persons is higher than mere existence of a reliable source. Once again, the onus is on those wanting to include the material to establish consensus for inclusion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:00, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose for having a higher standard for inclusion of personal information of living persons beyond the mere existence of a reliable source is to consider potential privacy concerns and err on the side of caution in situations where an isolated third-party source independent of the subject is publishing private information for which it can be inferred that the living person may object to its publication. This is not the case here as the source of personal information is self-published in which Jenna Haze herself is disclosing her own personal information to the public on her official social media profile and tweets. With that being said, I disagree with your attempt to justify its exclusion by debating borderline notability. In my view, I believe the onus for its inclusion is met but since it doesn't seem that we'll come to an agreement, I've already requested a 3rd party opinion and will consider other arbitration methods to resolve this dispute to reach a consensus. IPIPIPIP (talk) 11:57, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose for having a higher standard for inclusion of personal information of living persons is to avoid inadvertent harm to the subject of a BLP. Once again, the subject is borderline notable, so there's little reason to include the full DOB. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:21, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Avoid inadvertent harm to the subject of a BLP via disclosure of personal information. Once again, the subject herself publicly self-published her own personal information on her own social media platforms which addresses your points and satisfies BLP criteria for inclusion. There's no reason not to include the full DOB in the article. IPIPIPIP (talk) 12:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, you are overstating the extent to which this information was publicized by the subject. One tweet is not the equivalent of one or more social media platforms. There are many reasons to exclude this info, identity theft and harassment to name a couple. The fact that the subject once tweeted her full DOB almost a dozen years ago doesn't mean they don't object to it being publicized now. Wikipedia has a global reach and is seen, rightly or wrongly, as authoritative. We must use extra care when dealing with BLPs. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:48, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:DOB (my bolding): If a subject complains about our inclusion of their date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year. There are two conditions here that militate against including a person's the full birth date: either they complain about the inclusion, or they are borderline notable. Either one may justify exclusion. Even if the first doesn't apply to this subject, the second definitely does. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:55, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We've already discussed the issue above and I've made abundantly clear the details of her social media posts and twitter profile. The fact that the subject tweeted her full DOB in addition to several other tweets publicly sharing her birthday and birth year and that her actual birthdate of Feburary 22 is currently published on her offical twitter profile is evidence enough to refute your speculative objection that she possibly might object to its inclusion in the article. I agree extra care must be taken when dealing with BLPs and that's exactly what's been done and I disagree with your opinion on notability and frankly your interpretation of the policy. In my view, there's no reasonable objection to why her full DOB shouldn't be included in the article. IPIPIPIP (talk) 13:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just my opinion. Once again, the most recent GA assessment specifically said the subject was lacking notability in mainstream media. This refusal to get the point is frankly becoming disruptive. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:19, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are two conditions here that militate against including a person's the full birth date: either they complain about the inclusion, or they are borderline notable. In what way does this statement diverge from the intended meaning of WP:DOB in your opinion? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The context of borderline notability within the BLP policy revolves around privacy concerns and issues of safety and harassement. That's what's clearly intended and it shouldn't be viewed in isolation or separate to these fundamental concerns. When the subject of the BLP themselves self-publish their own personal information, this satisfactorily addresses and alleviates these concerns and the issue of borderline notability shouldn't be used outside of its intended context to justify exclusion of otherwise properly sourced information, especially when the same BLP policy states that the citation satisfies the criteria for including the full DOB. I don't appreciate your false accusation of me being disruptive as I haven't opposed a group of editors or have gone against a consensus. In fact, I've done the opposite by communicating to you several times that we're not seeing eye to eye and that involving the wider community to arrive at a consensus to this dispute is likely best. IPIPIPIP (talk) 13:54, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are muddying the waters by claiming several tweets where Haze publicized "personal information" somehow support inclusion of this info, even though only one of those tweets satisfies the criteria of WP:DOB. We are not talking about "personal information" in the abstract, but a very specific personal detail. If anything, the fact that Haze has chosen not to publish her full birth date in the last decade weighs against inclusion and in favor of privacy. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:11, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A single source satisfying WP:DOB criteria which is also near identical to the example given in the BLP policy is more than sufficient. She doesn't need to constantly tweet out her entire birthday every now and again, and I'm not muddying the waters by factually stating that she repeatedly tweets out her year of birth and date of birth in multiple places to dispel the myth of supposed privacy concerns you're personally trying to impose on her. If anything, the fact that she has her birthdate of February 22 (the very specific personal detail you're arguing should be excluded from the article for privacy reasons) currently published on her main twitter profile, is definitive evidence that there is no reason or justification to exclude it from the article with a properly cited reference. IPIPIPIP (talk) 15:58, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Response to third opinion request:
Hello @IPIPIPIP and @Sangdeboeuf, I am responding to the third party request initiated in this matter. The policy in WP:DOB is helpful. From an encyclopedic standpoint, the article's subject is only marginally notable (but this, I do not intend to cast doubt on the article as a whole, but only to address marginal notability in the context of WP:DOB). WP:NOTEVERYTHING is also helpful to the analysis: "A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." It is unclear what the exact day of birth useful in this context. Finally, social media is a disfavored source, even where published by a subject of an article themselves. Self-published material is not always reliable. Indeed, there are many good reasons to think someone in this line of work would not post her accurate, down-to-the-date birthday online. For these reasons, my third opinion is that you should not include the full birthdate. I hope this third opinion is helpful in resolving your disagreement. JArthur1984 (talk) 23:12, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input. With regards to your comment on social media being a disfavoured source and self-published material not always being reliable, do you have a Wikipedia policy to support your assertion or is this your own personal opinion? The fact that the reference meets WP:DOB and BLP criteria inherently means it is a reliable source for wikipedia standards. As for WP:NOTEVERYTHING, being ok with including the year of birth and arbitrarily excluding the day of birth is inconsistent. Both are sourced from self-published social media meeting WP:DOB. The relevant issue at hand were privacy considerations which I've demonstrated are not a concern in this specific case. I'm still convinced that there's no valid reason to exclude the full DOB in this specific article. IPIPIPIP (talk) 23:55, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:TWITTER: Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves as long as the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim and there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. Porn stars are in the business of selling a fantasy version of themselves. There's no reason to necessarily treat a self-published birth date as infallible, especially when lacking confirmation from more mainstream reliable sources as per WP:EXCEPTIONAL: Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Warnings (red flags) that should prompt extra caution include [...] apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources [and] Challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between a self-published birth year and a self-published birth date is significant. That is why WP:DOB says to err on the side of caution and simply list the year in marginal cases like this one. It's illogical to presume the subject approves of the full date being publicized because they posted the day and/or year in isolation a few times. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC) edited 00:36, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A DOB is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim and there's no reason to doubt the authenticity of her social media. Are you claiming that a DOB is an "exceptional claim" which requires confirmation from multiple high-quality sources to independently verify? That would defeat the purpose of the BLP policy regarding WP:DOB which provides clear criteria which you yourself have admitted the provided source (which is near identical to the example provided for in the policy) satisfies and is met in this case. And the purpose for "erring on the side of caution" with regards to birth date is to consider potential privacy concerns in situations where an isolated third-party source independent of the subject is publishing private information for which it can be inferred that the living person may object to its publication. This is not the case here as the source of personal information is Jenna Haze herself disclosing her own personal information to the public meeting WP:DOB criteria. As previously stated, she has not only posted the day and year of birth in isolation but has published the entire date of birth in one post and then republished the day and year in several other different posts and on her main profile. IPIPIPIP (talk) 00:32, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DOB must be evaluated alongside other core content policies. As JArthur1984 said, there are many good reasons to think someone in this line of work would not post her accurate, down-to-the-date birthday online. I think it is time for you to WP:DROPTHESTICK and WP:LISTEN to what other users are saying. If you require further input, the next step would be to post a request at WP:BLP/N. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You specifically cited the fact that Haze has her birthday in her Twitter bio as definitive evidence that she does not object to the full date being published. This is illogical; there is a difference between the day and/or year in isolation and the full date including the year. There are many reasons to treat a porn star's birth date as an exceptional claim, as already explained by me and JArthur1984. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Editors can view my discussion with JArthur1984 on his talkpage. IPIPIPIP (talk) 01:13, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on date of birth[edit]

Should the full date of birth be included in the article? 01:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

  • No per WP:EXCEPTIONAL, WP:DOB, WP:TWITTER. As stated earlier, porn stars are in the business of selling a fantasy version of themselves. We shouldn't necessarily treat a self-published age + birthday as infallible, especially when lacking confirmation from more mainstream reliable sources. This is especially true for information posted to social media. Even if we assume this tweet is accurate, the standard for inclusion of personal information of living persons is higher than mere existence of a reliable source. Including a full DOB presents privacy concerns whether the date is accurate or not. (An earlier argument claimed that because Haze has her birthday of February 22 in her Twitter bio, she should be presumed to be OK with the full date being published. But there's a difference between posting the day and/or year in isolation and publishing the full date of birth; there's also a difference between tweeting something once almost twelve years ago and having it prominently displayed on one's Wikipedia page indefinitely.) The most recent GA assessment specifically found the subject to be lacking notability in mainstream media. In such cases the normal practice is to simply list the year of birth. Wikipedia has a global reach and is seen, rightly or wrongly, as authoritative, so we must use extra care with material regarding living persons. Given the subject's questionable notability, the full DOB does not add anything useful nor is the source reliable enough to meet policy requirements in my opinion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:49, 30 January 2023 (UTC) edited 07:54, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I've notified WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard about this RfC. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin: JArthur1984's response to an earlier third opinion request should also be considered when evaluating the consensus of this RfC. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No WP:DOB says If a subject complains about our inclusion of their date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year, provided that there is a reliable source for it. I think that applies here, the subject of this article is borderline notable. There are also reasons to believe the date of birth may not be reliable --Tristario (talk) 08:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No per WP:EXCEPTIONAL, WP:DOB, WP:TWITTER My thoughts are inline with what Sangdeboeuf has expressed. Sergeant Curious (talk) 19:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes The context of borderline notability within the BLP policy revolves around privacy concerns and issues of safety and harassement. That's what's clearly intended and it shouldn't be viewed in isolation or separate to these fundamental concerns. When the subject of the BLP themselves self-publish their own personal information, this satisfactorily addresses and alleviates these concerns and the issue of borderline notability shouldn't be used outside of its intended context to justify exclusion of otherwise properly sourced information, especially when the same BLP policy states that the citation satisfies the criteria for including the full DOB. There's a single combined tweet that includes her full DOB [7] which is basically identical to the example ("today is my 50th birthday") provided for in the BLP policy [8] for self-published sources. Her birth day February 22 is also listed on her main profile page [9]. She has also tweeted her birth year multiple times in addition to her entire combined birthdate. A DOB is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim and there's no reason to doubt the authenticity of her social media as per WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:TWITTER. Claiming that a DOB is an "exceptional claim" which requires confirmation from multiple high-quality sources to independently verify would defeat the purpose of the BLP policy regarding WP:DOB which provides clear criteria that the provided source meets in this case. And the purpose for "erring on the side of caution" with regards to birth date is to consider potential privacy concerns in situations where an isolated third-party source independent of the subject is publishing private information for which it can be inferred that the living person may object to its publication. This is not the case here as the source of personal information is Jenna Haze herself disclosing her own personal information to the public per WP:DOB criteria. As previously stated, she has not only posted the day and year of birth in isolation but has published the entire date of birth in one post and then republished the day and year in several other different posts and on her main profile. IPIPIPIP (talk) 14:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The purpose for "erring on the side of caution" with regards to birth date is to consider potential privacy concerns in situations where an isolated third-party source independent of the subject is publishing private information ... Can you link to a discussion establishing this as the intent of the policy? Or is this just a guess? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:16, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No per WP:DOB, ' If a subject complains about our inclusion of their date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year, provided that there is a reliable source for it." Seems rather cut-and-dry to me. --Jayron32 15:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's understandable with a literal reading of WP:DOB. However, the spirit of the guideline should not be ignored in my opinion. For example, the 3RR is not implemented literally. When editors try to skirt their way around it, by violating the spirit of the 3RR, a sanction is imposed. And even when more than 3 reverts occurs, admins have discretion not to sanction based on considering the totality of circumstances. The borderline notability recommendation in WP:DOB has an obvious intent, spirit, and context behind it which should be considered and which I argue for above in my vote. IPIPIPIP (talk) 16:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She's borderline notable. She's not a president of a major nation or top-flight athlete or a Nobel Prize winner. --Jayron32 18:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My comment is not disputing the level of her notability. My comment is addressing the apparent intent behind borderline notability in WP:DOB (to protect privacy, safety, harassment) and how, for reasons outlined above, why in my view it's being misapplied in this specific case. IPIPIPIP (talk) 18:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument relies on the fact that Haze once tweeted her age + birthday almost twelve years ago. There's quite a difference between that and having the date prominently displayed on one's Wikipedia page indefinitely. It doesn't violate the spirit of BLP policy to use caution in such a case. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to tweeting it 12 years ago, her birthdate is currently prominently displayed on her verified twitter social media profile in addition to being tweeted in 2022, 2020, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2018, 2016, etc. Her birthday is also published by The Times of India: [10], AVN: [11], IAFD: [12], IMDb: [13], etc. And yes, I can already read your reply on the merits of some of these sources, but what's being relied upon is the social media self-published source meeting BLP WP:DOB guidelines. IPIPIPIP (talk) 06:06, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See below. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:57, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No per Tristario etc. See also WP:BLPKINDNESS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, if we can find sourced legal material why not? I don't see the subject complaining about their birthdate as seems to be implied above, so what is the problem?--Ortizesp (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If a subject complains about our inclusion of their date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year. It was found at Talk:Jenna Haze/GA1 that the subject has questionable mainstream notability. There are plenty of legal sources that are not suitable for use on Wikipedia. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC) edited 03:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And the page was kept, so it's notable. Therefore the arguments don't stand.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:33, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    MY point is the subject is just barely notable; I've edited my reply to reflect this. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
err on the side of caution for potential reasons of privacy, safety, and harassment. There is no reason to "err on the side of caution" in this case because the source of personal information is not an isolated independent third-party source, but Jenna Haze herself, meeting BLP WP:DOB criteria for self-published sources. IPIPIPIP (talk) 04:58, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for caution is that there's a difference between tweeting one's age + birthday once, almost twelve years ago, and having the date prominently displayed on one's Wikipedia page indefinitely.
So far we've only been discussing whether or not to exclude the date based on WP policy. But just because something is allowed under policy doesn't necessarily mean it should be kept; see WP:NOTEVERYTHING. A positive consensus for inclusion would seem to require reasons why the information is necessary or essential to the article, and I'm not seeing any. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:11, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You keep portraying this as being limited to some one-off tweet 12 years ago when her birthdate is currently prominently displayed on her verified twitter social media profile in addition to being tweeted in 2022, 2020, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2018, 2016, etc. In addition, her birthday is published by The Times of India: [14], AVN: [15], IAFD: [16], IMDb: [17], etc. And yes, I can already read your reply on the merits of some of these sources, but what's being relied upon is the social media self-published source meeting BLP WP:DOB guidelines. I'm not seeing any reason why it should be excluded from the article based on WP policy. IPIPIPIP (talk) 06:06, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then why bring them up if you know they're poor sources? IMDb and IAFD are both WP:USERGENERATED. AVN performer bios are copied from other sites and may not be reliable. The same is apparently true of the Times of India, which is somewhere between "no consensus" and "generally unreliable". None of the linked tweets include the full birth date, and some don't even explicitly say what Haze's birthday is. Haze's Twitter bio only lists her birthday, not the full date.
Still not seeing any reasons why the information is valuable, necessary or essential to the article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:57, 2 February 2023 (UTC) edited 07:16, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Her full birthdate is mentioned in the 2011 tweet, and at least 6 or 7 tweets over the years up until as recent as 2022 explicitly confirms the date of February 22 that was mentioned in the tweet with her full date. As an online encyclopedia, the information is relevant, and it is properly sourced according to WP BLP guidelines per WP:DOB criteria (which includes a near identical example to the reference provided for this article). I've addressed the reasons of borderline notability/privacy, and in my view, there is no convincing WP policy or appropriate justification to exclude it. IPIPIPIP (talk) 07:25, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTEVERYTHING explicitly says not all information is relevant to an encyclopedia. The fact that Haze has confirmed her birthday multiple times but not her full DOB seems significant. The WP:ONUS is on those favoring inclusion to show why the material should be included, not that it's merely allowed. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not all information is relevant to an encyclopedia. Her properly sourced full birthdate is. IPIPIPIP (talk) 07:46, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it relevant? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:53, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No per WP:BLPKINDNESS and WP:DOB, which seem intended to solve these types of situations. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT has the subject Jenna Haze herself objected to her birthdate being included? Because if NOT then these arguments for BLPKINDNESS, DOB, EXCEPTIONAL etc aren't relevant.21:33, 31 January 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ortizesp (talk • contribs)
    WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:NOTEVERYTHING have nothing to do with the subject's personal feelings. Even WP:DOB focuses more on overall privacy concerns; whether someone complains is only one reason to exclude personal identifying information. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ortizesp: is absolutely correct that WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:BLPKINDNESS are irrelevant to this case. IPIPIPIP (talk) 06:06, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but EXCEPTIONAL shouldn't apply (DOB isn't exceptional), nor is NOTEVERYTHING since birthdate is included in literally every other biography. Ortizesp (talk) 06:09, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with you. IPIPIPIP (talk) 06:14, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Birth dates are not included in literally every other biography. We even have a policy (WP:DOB) that says to omit the full date in certain cases. Are we really saying that porn stars and other celebrities have no reason to obfuscate their true birth dates? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't one of those cases for reasons I've done my best to outline above. IPIPIPIP (talk) 07:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a relevant argument for why it would be omitted for pornstars over other celebrities. Actors and actresses also face ageism, I don't think it's a good argument here, especially if the intent isn't coming from the actress herself. Ortizesp (talk) 04:48, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes I'm perplexed that there's even a debate about this topic. This person's birthday is published in multiple places so there's no invasion of privacy. The date is in the public, it's sourced. Most of the guideline arguments against inclusion seem to be a misunderstanding of WP:BLP polices which Ortizesp has astutely pointed out. Haze is notable and no one here has provided an example of an objection so WP:BLPKIND is irrelevant. - Nemov (talk) 17:10, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What are the sources for her DOB? Is it only the tweet from her Twitter account [18]? Some1 (talk) 18:42, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a comment above that lists four websites that have her DOB. Nemov (talk) 14:09, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    None of those sites are generally reliable for BLPs. Just because the date is in the public doesn't mean it belongs on Wikipedia. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Times of India would probably be fine for something like this, but the birthday is also published on Rotten Tomatoes[19] which is a reliable source. Nemov (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Rotten Tomatoes is considered generally reliable for its review aggregation and its news articles on film and TV. I disagree that its celebrity profile pages are necessarily reliable. Like the Times of India, they seem to just be copied from the wider web with no indication of authorship, let alone editorial oversight. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:17, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How many websites does it need to be on before you're conforatable that it's correct? 5? 10? 20? These sites are fine for this kind of information. Nemov (talk) 03:17, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely not. BLPs require quality sourcing, not just quantity. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:52, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether the information is simply correct is not the whole issue. Privacy is also a concern. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:53, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2024[edit]

Her birthday is 02/22/1982 74.102.50.243 (talk) 08:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jenna_Haze&oldid=1216662076"