Talk:Jenna Jameson/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jenna Jameson

Going for all the marbles. :-) This talk page is large, but its content is mostly about the FAC-suitability work, so I decided not to archive until that is over, one way or the other. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Promoted! Yea! Hip-hip-hurrah! Thank you, thank you, thank you all! The only way it could be happier is if it could have been unanimous; some objections we'll never fix (for example those that think it is just too long for a porn star), but if there are any that can still be corrected, please comment here or on my talk page, and we'll see what we can do. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Changes since FA

Thanks to everyone - I'm leaving most alone, but here is my reasoning for the few I'm changing back, in order.

• header - "managing similar websites of other stars" changing back from "actresses" because I can't guarantee they were always only female's sites - the source (Forbes) in the main article body says "stars", and that there are now 16 such sites and implies were once more. "Club Thrust", for example, is hardly an "actress's" site. The term "star" is commonly used in the industry and in the article, for example in the first sentence, in the title of the E! article, in the title of the Wall Street Journal article, etc.
• header - "is also noted for her relative success in crossing over into mainstream celebrity, starting with". I think this is important to write in some form, otherwise it's not clear why these relatively minor appearances are important enough to be in the header. Please feel free to rephrase if you think it's clumsy, but I do think we should say this in some form. Also note that the alternate was grammatically incorrect.
• "saliva" - frankly, that's what makes it her signature move. Just the act is pretty common to the field. I guess we could avoid it entirely, but it's like avoiding writing that Christopher Walken has strange mannerisms and generally plays menacing roles, the article would be missing a rather important part of the actor's uniqueness. WP:NOT censored, and all that.
• "the biggest star the industry has ever seen" quote - I think this is quite important, as it goes to character and motivation, showing she had the intention to get where she was, that it wasn't an accident. If she had to be described in a single sentence, I think this would be it. I believe the fact it's also quoted by two unrelated sources shows that I'm not alone in thinking it's important in describing her.
• Grdina's family - important enough to be worth seven words, I think, and the NYT and Forbes both mention it, so, again, I think it's relevant. But I won't fight to the death over it.
• Path of Fame cite - better to cite than not to, I think. If someone thinks the whole entry should go, I won't fight it, but if we are writing that she won an award, we should cite a source that she won it, if we can. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Name Inconsistency.

For the first two sections or so of the article, Jenna Jameson is referred to as "Massoli," but then it suddenly switches to "Jameson." Which is it? This is a major inconsitency. To maintain consistency, I propose we either change it all to "Massoli," or to "Jameson." Acalamari 23:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Acalamari, there was some discussion here, where AnonEMouse replied to a similar comment from me:

Addhoc 23:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

That explains it. I didn't think that would be in the archives, but I should have checked. Acalamari 00:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

FAC comments made after promotion

Thread copied from User talk:AnonEMouse (with permission). WT refers to user:Worldtraveller. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

If you could make changes responsive to the comments I made just before the FAC was closed (at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Jenna_Jameson), I'd appreciate it. I'm not saying make it less comprehensive, but I think there are plenty of unnecessary details that could be cut. IMO WT's complaint that It is very poorly written, presenting quotes as if they are fact rather than summarising in the voice of the encyclopaedia. Her words express her own point of view, of course, and the author of this article adopts that point of view without question. refers to the nearly exclusive use of interviews and her autobiography as sources rather than actual secondary sources. What the article basically says is "Jenna Jameson has said ...". She's had a lot to say in lots of interviews, reported in lots of places, so it looks like numerous sources, but they all basically amount to her words. If someone else had written a biography about her or even a book about porn stars that could be referenced, this would be an actual secondary source (not "her words"). I hope you don't take this as overly critical. I'm concerned about WT's state of mind. I'm concerned about yours as well (all editors are important to me). It's been long enough now that it's pretty clear Raul654 is not going to change his mind and "defeature" it pending further improvements. I'm fine with this (really), but I do hope you make an effort to respond to my suggestions. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, Wt's complaint is basically wrong. I could only find one example of a quote that could be read as if it were presented as fact; I changed it, and asked him for others - he never provided any, and it has been a week. (Feel free to find some yourself, by the way.) If you read my opening to the FAC, you will notice that most of the article was written from articles, not using her autobiography at all, specifically to forestall such an objection. (See Talk:Jenna_Jameson/Archive_2#Jenna.27s_autobiography for the long discussion where I was finally convinced to use it in a few places.) Just from a sheer count of citations from the references, you will see the main sources are the New York Times article, the Forbes article, and the E! biography, which are all as much secondary sources as any biography. Read them, they're not interviews, they don't state "Jenna Jameson has said ..." or I would have written that. They have satisfied themselves that the things they write are facts to their standards, which are pretty high; they would stand up to those of a hardcover biography any day. Did they use her words? Probably. Did they rely on her words? Don't know. We'd face the same problem with a book length biography - except that Kitty Kelley doesn't have the cachet of Forbes or the Times. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

As for your more specific objections:

• Lead paragraph, second sentence - has been changed (though not by me), see if it's better.
• "Parentheticals are nearly always just sloppy prose." This seems a general observation, rather than a specific criticism. If you have a specific suggestion, I'd be glad to hear it.

  The specific suggestion is to look at every use of a parenthetical phrase and to try to rewrite it without using parentheticals. Using parentheticals amounts to using a footnote - it interrupts the flow of text and distracts the reader from topic at hand. If the point is not important enough to include inline in the text, consider deleting it. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

  I did look at them, but will again.--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

  All right, looking at uses of parentheses. There are:

  • (name & birth date) - standard usage, example WP:FA James Joyce
  • film production date - standard usage
  • common abbreviations for organization names, such as "X-Rated Critics Organization (XRCO)" - standard usage, example WP:FA Margaret Thatcher
  • Specification of accompanying actor, such as "AVN Award for Couples Sex Scene (Film) - Blue Movie (with T.T. Boy)" and "Briana Loves Jenna (with Briana Banks)"
  • Awards titles such as "Best Actress (Video)" - that's the actual name of the award
  • alternate units - according to style guideline WP:MOSNUM
  • Jameson (at right) and Brian Griffin (the dog) - cartoon image identification

Those are standard usage. That seems to leave a grand total of the following 5:

1. (Preacher has denied this.)
2. her brother (who was addicted to heroin)
3. "moan tones" (telephone ringtones)
4. Adidas (a larger sporting goods company than Pony)
5. Madame Tussauds (in the Las Vegas museum)

They're hardly flooding the article. I believe in each case they convey the information in the best way, if you know a way they can be improved, please do. There are a grand total of roughly 30 parentheticals in the article text, not including awards list and references. A random FA I chose, Isaac Asimov, has over 90, not including bibliography and references. So I think this usage is not unusual. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• "Early life - unnecessary details include where her mother danced, how much time her father spent working." I'm afraid I disagree. She first tried to follow in her mother's footsteps, and the distance from her father while growing up had a major impact on her life.
• "Is the beating and rape a documented fact?" To the satisfaction of the cited sources, and no objections have been raised from anyone else. Also be aware of what you are asking documentation for - a victim's testimony is all that most rapes have. "both could be condensed" - again, they had a very strong impact on her life. Even if we believe her quote that it didn't shape her psychology (I can't say I do), it seems hard to believe she could have been an underage stripper if she was still living with her policeman father.

  The cited reference seems to be a PR blurb related to the release of her book. I know this is a delicate issue and I'm not claiming I think it didn't happen. On the other hand, stating this as fact in an encyclopedia article fundamentally based on one autobiographical reference strikes me as inappropriate. I'd be happier if we directly cite the autobiography, and have text like "she says in her autobiography, ...". -- Rick Block (talk) 16:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

  Not a PR blurb, but an article published in two reputable newspapers, a fine secondary source. Will look at rephrasing anyway.--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

  Rephrased, struck subsequent quote, see response to Worldtraveller below. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• "Even though it has two references, I'd cut the first sentence completely (the references are no doubt two different interviews)" - Disagree strongly, the motivation for someone entering their primary career is quite important. See Bette Davis, Vivien Leigh, which mention those stars' motivations similarly based on their own words.

  Again, this is a case of elevating what she's said to fact. The wording in the Forbes reference is ... at 19 she quit stripping to act in adult films--mainly to retaliate against her beau, who had been cheating on her, as she tells it. We've dropped the as she tells it, and now present this as a pure fact. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

  Corrected. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• "lubricated with plenty of saliva" - bizarre perhaps, but that is what makes it the signature. Bette Davis's eyes, Vivien Leigh's lightning changes of moods are all over the place in their articles.

  The askmen.com reference is an interview, and she volunteers oral as her signature move. The Salon article is also an interview and the interviewer calls this her signature move. I'd imagine "signature" move would have tons of more authoritative sources (for example, a quote from a wll known reviewer). These two strike me as PR attempts to establish this as a signature. This is another case where an actual secondary source would be helpful. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

  Just curious, whom would you consider "a wll known reviewer" of pornography? Ted Sturgeon hasn't been reviewing porn for decades. Salon and AskMen are better known than any modern reviewers I've heard of. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• "butter and focaccia bread" - has been removed
• "there isn't a count of how many movies she made between 1995 and 2001." There's an estimate and reference for total films, and the fully detailed filmography has been broken out to be a separate article in progress. Why is the span of those years particularly important?

  You mean the estimate in the infobox? The point is that this is a fact that I'd expect to find in this section. I don't really care about the specific years, but this appears to be the period in which she was most active. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• "She was the first entertainer to have won" -> "to win" - done.
• Early Career "condensing to paragraph", Relationships, Business "cut by half" - sorry, I disagree with Wt's contention that the article needs to be radically shortened because the subject matter doesn't meet his standards.

  I believe you're misinterpreting the point, which IMO is that much of the content is in the realm of unnecessary detail. Comprehensive is not the same as exhaustive. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• "famous boyfriends" - maybe if someone else agrees, but they are referred to prominently in quite a few articles on her.
• "scion of a wealthy cattle-ranching family" - disagree, Margaret Thatcher's article describes Denis.
• Roman Catholic-style ceremony - strongly disagree, that she is trying to be religious and a porn star is important

  Important to whom? -- Rick Block (talk) 16:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

  To her, and to the article. It's a serious effort to try to join those two rather contradicting modes; that she tries to do so is worth a few words. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• ring finger tattoo - has been removed
• where they lived - disagree, that's encyclopedic; also note she became (in)famous where she chose to live, with the Babes Cabaret stuff
• how much their house cost - maybe, but goes to what she did with her wealth
• gossip column level details about her current relationship - partly agree, and have been trimming the gossip stuff, but two items are notable - first, how she began ending a long term marriage with someone who is also a very important business partner, and that her current one is actually losing work due to associating with her. Note how much space Vivien Leigh gives to Jack Merivale for much the same reasons.

So in short, I did some, disagreed with others, especially the "cut by half" parts, and there are a couple of bits I could agree to remove if I could be convinced they were motivated more by the effort to genuinely improve the article rather than just shorten it for Wt's less than satisfactory reasons. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, many of the "done" bits above were done by Addhoc. Thanks! --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This article implicitly endorses its subject's opinions as fact. This is not acceptable for an encyclopaedia article - it's magazine style writing. I do not know what AnonEMouse looked for, found and changed, but the two quotes currently in this article are quite blatantly doing this. She writes in her autobiography: followed by an opinion on whether a rape in her youth affected her later career, and She remembers telling Wicked Pictures founder Steve Orenstein: are failing to do what an encyclopaedia should do, which is to summarise the view expressed by others, rather than adopt them wholesale. If AnonEMouse cannot see the problem with the current style of writing then I'd suggest someone else give it a critical read through to weed out this sort of bias. Worldtraveller 23:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Rather than fight over it, I can remove the first quote. The second one, that she intentionally, knowingly, wanted to become what she became, can't possibly be expressed by others, has not been contested by anyone, and is definitive of her character; this one I am willing to defend. I do not accept that quoting that line is adopting her point of view. What point of view would that be? That it was the most important thing to her? That can hardly be in dispute. That becoming the biggest porn star should be the reader's goal? Surely not. That quote is not implicitly endorsing anything as fact. That she is the world's biggest porn star is not implicit, it is explicitly stated, in the article header, and cited to excellent sources. That she said it is also reliably cited and not contested.--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is not what you're trying to say but how you're going about saying it. Quoting the subject of an article in the form "She remembers saying..." is simply not encyclopaedic at all. That was the problem with the first as well. Nothing wrong with saying that she denied her rape had anything to do with her later career choice, but write it like an encyclopaedia article and not a magazine piece or fan page. Similarly with the second one - say it, if it needs to be said, but not like this. Try "At this time, she stated her intention etc etc ^[ref]".

The problem of unencyclopaedic style is present throughout the article. Examples include "In her autobiography, Massoli writes that" - why not omit that and put a reference at the end? "(Preacher has denied this.)" - why is this sentence in brackets? "Jameson says..." - again, more like a magazine article. The list of awards is meaningless, really. It adds nothing to the article. Why not just have a sentence saying "Her films have won numerous industry awards"?

And finally, the length of the article is not appropriate. There is too much verbosity. Do you really think it's reasonable for an encyclopaedia to give Jenna Jameson as much coverage as Gandhi? Worldtraveller 23:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Why stop with Jenna? If the subject is "length proportionate to influence" and if Gandhi stands at 68K, then there are others whose articles should be pared back: David Miller (Canadian politician) (current mayor of Toronto) stands at 97K; Gerald Ford stands at 100K and Herbert Hoover (whose primary claim to fame is being the president when the Great Depression started) is equal in weight at 68K. Equally by that measure there are others whose articles should be beefed up - look at Hammurabi's which doesn't even give a length warning! If you ask me, the issue of article length is irrelevant. Tabercil 06:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Article length is not irrelevant because featured article criteria require that an article is of appropriate length. Surely you'd agree that if Jenna Jameson = Gandhi then one of them is not of appropriate length? So the question is which one. Frankly, very very few people will read all of an article that's longer than 32kb unless it's on something of crucial importance to science, history or the arts. If you write 100kb on a Canadian regional politician (and that is a truly terrible article), or 60kb on a porn star, then unfortunately I fear that your time has not been well spent because few people will read the article. If it was 20kb long, it would have a much more enthusiastic readership, and you could have written at least five very good 20kb articles in the time it takes to do one very good 60kb article. Worldtraveller 09:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This has been said before, but never gets addressed; as the forum keeps changing, I'll say it one more time.

1. Per Wikipedia:Article size - and common sense - we are not to count references in measuring the readable length of an article. (Those same very very few people won't read the references either.) References make up half of the length of Jenna Jameson and considerably less of Gandhi. The raw article on Gandhi is easily half again the length of the article on Jenna Jameson. The reason there are more refs in Jameson is that she is a living person, so per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons every controversial fact must be strongly cited. Almost every sentence in the Jameson article can be seen as controversial; it's about pornography, rapes, drug use, extensive media hype, criticism by major political and media figures, etc. The facts in Gandhi have become considerably less controversial since his death; very few people would criticise him now, for example, while Jameson is still strongly controversial, for example notice that her boyfriend lost an important job just a few months ago solely because of close association with her.
2. Meanwhile Gandhi has at least 10 sub-articles, which are not in the main article only due to considerations of Wikipedia:Summary style. They are each quite long. Jenna Jameson has 3 which could be considered sub-articles: her filmography, her autobiography, and her company (though even that is really an entity unto itself, she doesn't own it now, for example) and they are each quite short. Compare the articles on the autobiographies: The Story of My Experiments with Truth and How to Make Love Like a Porn Star: A Cautionary Tale. With sub-articles, the total space the encyclopedia devotes to Gandhi is easily many times as much as to Jameson, not even in the same order. Jenna Jameson has the right amount of space.

As to "Frankly, very very few people will read all of an article that's longer than 32kb unless it's on something of crucial importance to science, history or the arts." I believe you are completely, blatantly, demonstrably wrong. Popular culture is just that, popular. Jameson's autobiography was 600 pages, and a bestseller: that means very very many people read it. "If it was 20kb long, it would have a much more enthusiastic readership," is similarly, demonstrably, untrue. There were many short biographies of Jameson (as interviews and magazine articles) when the 600 page autobiography came out; none of the shorter ones made the New York Bestseller list, the longer one did. Jameson and Strauss knew what they were doing; if they had thought they would have "had a much more enthusiastic readership" were it shorter than 600 pages, they would clearly have made it shorter. They made it the length they did, and it worked. Believing that some people interested in a porn actress may be less diligent than those interested in obscure bits of science, history, or other arts may or may not be true, but believing there are fewer of them willing to read a half-dozen screenfuls of text with pictures is just ridiculous. There are more of them, clearly more of them, or the Internet would be flooded with "science, history or the arts" sites, rather than pornography. As is, I will lay any sum of money you like that considerably more people will read all of the article on Jenna Jameson than will read all of the article on any of Action potential, Act of Independence of Lithuania, or Felice Beato, just to pick the first WP:FA in each of the categories you mention; I'll even lay the same wager for 80% of the articles in each category. If this isn't among the 10% of the most read FAs on this site that haven't been on the main page, and with a comparable number of incoming links, I will be greatly surprised.

"and you could have written at least five very good 20kb articles in the time it takes to do one very good 60kb article." That's a known, and again demonstrable, fallacy. Volunteer effort is not transferrable like that; volunteers will help in the way they want to, and if you discourage them from doing that, they generally won't do other things you want them to, they will more likely just leave. How many articles has User:Kelly Martin written since she stopped contributing as an admin? Yes, I have written a number of fairly good shorter articles: Alice Barnham, Richard Pacheco, Monica Coghlan, others listed on my user page. Yes, each took less time, but I wanted to get an FA under my fur, ever since I read WP:1FA, mostly agreed with it, and felt that I really should have one to be an admin; not to mention that I wanted one article in WP:P* to truly be the best that an article about the subject can be. I've written all that before. It's a completely different feeling, and I would not trade this one big article with little star for five smaller ones. I'm also sure it will be read by more people than all my smaller ones. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Obviously people will read a book longer than 32kb; I'm not talking about book readership, I'm talking about encyclopaedia readership. You shouldn't be writing something here that's attempting to compete with book readership. We could argue the demographics inconclusively all day but I am still quite certain that there are really not many people out there who want to read 60kb of encyclopaedia article about a porn star. 95% of the web being porn doesn't actually mean there are lots of people out there crying out for a lengthy pseudo-encyclopaedic article on their favourite porn star.

You seem to be saying that you have to write a long article for it to become an FA. This is not the case. The shortest are considerably under 20kb. Wouldn't you trade this massive article with star for five smaller ones with star? Each of which being more likely to actually be read and appreciated? Worldtraveller 11:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to write an article of this length for it to be the best article it can be. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Why this long? Why not twice as long? Why not half as long? 81.179.115.188 21:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Because if it was shorter it would be leaving out important points, and if it was longer, that would be padding. Sorry if that seems obvious, but that is the answer. I spent 6 months on this (not full time, of course, but still). I read a lot of sources - not least of which was the existing article, I didn't start from scratch. I decided what would and would not be important from a combination of the amount the better written sources devoted to the various points, and my judgement as an editor. My general judgement as an FA editor is, of course, likely not as good as yours, since you've got a dozen FAs under you're belt, and I've just got the one, but I suspect I might know a bit more about the issues involved with both this particular article, and whether or not there are lots of people out there who want to read 30KB of encyclopedia article about a porn star. (You keep writing 60, BTW.) While I respect your views, on major issues like this one, I apologise, but must respectfully continue to resist. (I'm assuming you're Worldtraveller who scrambled his password in a Giano imitation. What is it with prolific FA writers like that, BTW?) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 22:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Front page

Could this article ever appear on the front page? Trevor GH5 12:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Possibly, but not likely. See that very question on Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/Jenna_Jameson, asked in the first section, answered in the second. But heck, just having that little star means a lot. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Plastic Surgery or weight loss?

Is it me or did she have extensive work done to her face. At first I thought it was dramatic weight loss, as you can see in her body, but if you look closely, you can see the shape of her face has changed a bit, and possibly her nose. Can anyone find any documentation regarding this (facial) plastic surgery, or am I wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Odie1344 (talk • contribs) 16:28, June 12, 2007

Hopkins?

In the relationships section, a line reads "They were engaged in December of 2000 — before her divorce from Hopkins[4] —" Who the heck is Hopkins? There's no mention of that name previously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.5.72.9 (talk • contribs) 14:59, July 6, 2007

• Hopkins is Brad Armstrong's real name, apparently. I've fixed this section to use Armstrong instead... Valrith 19:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • That's apparently because some editor removed the mention of Armstrong's real name earlier, without looking to see how that would affect later text. Undoing that, and citing that bit specifically, so it won't vanish again (though the later citation for that paragraph also covered this). --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • mea culpa. I didn't like the parenthetical inclusion of the person's real name. I see it as ugly and grammatically poor. In my opinion, the article should pick one of the two names and use it throughout, and get rid of the parenthetical. Valrith 20:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Plastic surgery

I was hunting for more info about Jill Kelly and I came across this article on AVN from 2002 (I'm guessing by the date in the url: "081902"). In it she says on the topic of plastic surgery:

"I'm sick and fucking tired of people saying I've had all this shit done to me," she says, somewhat angrily. "The only things I've had done are my chin and my boobs."

Now in the article as it stands it says that she's had two boob and a chin job by 2004. Obviously we'd want to roll back the date given in the Wiki article, but how do we reference this? The AVN article doesn't mention how many boob jobs she's had... Tabercil 22:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Why dont you put the picture of how 'nice' she looks at the moment? This picture on the page doesnt represent her at all! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.162.158 (talk) 17:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Her current "look" could not be achieved through anything but plastic surgery. The entry photo is grossly inaccurate to how she looks today. --72.202.150.92 14:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

First boy-girl scene

(The following conversation is cut'n'pasted from User_talk:Baronvon#Jenna_Jameson to bring it to the proper audience for further discussion)

• Indeed, among other things you are saying her first boy-girl scene was in Up and Cummers 10. However, we have a reliable source (the E! Channel) that says it was Cherry Pie. So the onus is on you to prove that E! got it wrong. Tabercil 00:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC).

I already did: The US Copyright office. In fact Cherry Pie was her third boy/girl film after the two Up and Cummer films. I would not consider The E! channel a reliable source when compared to the copyright records. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Baronvon (talk • contribs) 01:31, August 2, 2007 (UTC)

Okay... a few questions/comments:

1. Do the records in question exist online? If so, can you post links for each file?
2. Do the copyright records record when the film was made or merely when the work was submitted to them?
3. The above information may constitute original research and thus it might be unusable...

Looking forward to your reply... Tabercil 05:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I got all the information online. The information posted on the listing would allow anyone to do their own search if they chose to. I will put the links here tomorrow so you can check it. Also the two Randy West movies with Jenna she has natural breasts. These were her only sex scenes with natural breasts. By the time she made Cherry Pie she has implants.

Thanks for the formatting! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Baronvon (talk • contribs) 03:02, August 2, 2007 (UTC)

• Can you post the actual URLs that you found your information at? Tabercil 12:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Her first scene was in U&C, but I'm fairly sure it was girl-girl until CP. Besides E!, AskMen is quite explicit -- http://www.askmen.com/women/models_250/262c_jenna_jameson.html --

“ Jenna Jameson began her career as an adult film star in 1993, again with her father's consent. Her first appearances were in girl-girl scenes. Her first onscreen sex scene with a woman occurred in 1994's Up and Cummers 11. Jenna was involved in her first coed project, Cherry Pie, later that same year. ”

Note that Randy West also says that Up and Cummers were her first scenes http://www.randywest.com/about.html and Jameson also states several places that she did girl-girl scenes before boy-girl scenes (for example http://www.papermag.com/?section=article&parid=269&page=3 ) so if Jameson and West are both telling the truth, then her first film can't have been boy-girl. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

From IAFD:

[1]rame.net : iafd : movie detail : up and cummers 11 Up And Cummers 11 (1994) Distributor 4-Play Video Compilation No Director Randy West Minutes 140 All-Girl No All-Male No Actresses Jenna Jameson [Creampie] Krysti Lynn [Facial] Silka [Facial Swallow] Vanity [Anal Facial] Actors Gerry Pike Randy West Sebastian

Scene Breakdowns Scene 1. Jenna Jameson, Randy West Scene 2. Sebastian, Silka Scene 3. Gerry Pike, Krysti Lynn Scene 4. Randy West, Vanity

You are correct that the first U & C (#10) with Jenna was all girl with her and Kylie Ireland. The second was Jenna with Randy as you can see from the scene breakdown above. If you are trying to rely on the memory of two people who have been known to use drugs for their recall of details of what would have been easily forgattable actions under normal circumstances almost 7 to 10 years after the event and expect accuracy perhaps tests your ability to question information sources and the ability to do some basic fact checking. In addition you can read the many reviews of their performance. In addition, you can buy the performance on Ebay. If that isn't enough you can download this very scene at a torrent website. If this scene was not the first why would Randy West state on his website that he has the only scenes with Jenna and her natural breasts?

[2]

Are you saying she got implants, did Cherry Pie, then had them removed and did two more films with Randy West and then went and had implants re-installed and completed further movies, all in one year? Or are you saying that Randy West was telling the truth in one interview and telling lies on his website (see link above). --Baronvon 19:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, that bio of Jenna that was provided by Askmen in the link above has so many errors that it should not be referenced except to look at her pictures. --Baronvon 19:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I was saying that she did girl-girl scenes in U&C. But it's worth double-checking, the autobiography has a lot on her early film work, and some conversations with Randy West specifically, let's see what it says. It'll take me a few days to get to a copy, if you have a copy if you can post quotes with chapter and page numbers, that would make things faster. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

AnonEMouse: If you have Jenna's book you will easily see that chapters 8,9,10 and 11 are dedicated completely to her first boy girl scene explains all the details. It starts on page 137. The production for Up and Cummers 10 was April 18, 1994. Her scene was with Kylie Ireland. She saw the rest of the actors perform and figured she could do that. According Jenna, Randy West asked her to do another film right away. She claims Randy West paid her her same fee as her first day day plus and additional $2000 do do a scene with him the next day. Up and Cummers 11 was filmed on April 19, 1994. She did her scene with Randy West on that day. Her next BG film was shortly after and was for a film called Spongecake. She detested the male talent she was to perform with. After Spongecake she had her boobs done. No mention is made at all of the film Cherry Pie. I guess the E! show is not a great reference after all. --Baronvon 23:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

When discussing her book, you should read what is printed on page IX (before the actual page numbering begins): "... one movie title has been changed". Jameson is so well-known that you can expect to find every porn movie she ever participated in mentioned on the Internet. If you look up this movie title "Spongecake", you won't find it. Not in IMDb, not in IAFD, not anywhere else. Also, what kind of a porn movie title would this be? Sounds silly, if you ask me. So I assume this is the movie whose title was changed. For whatever reason. --Rosenzweig 13:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Jenna's birth name

Jenna was born Jennifer Marie Massoli. Her birth name was not Jenna. The amount of references which state her correct name are overwhelming. It is embarrasing that Wikipedia would have this incorrect, and then create problems when someone tries to correct it. Do a search on Jennifer Massoli and you will get thousands of hits that accurately link that name to Jenna Jameson. There are multiple books, including her own biography that state this. Has anyone editing this website even read it? If someone feels that simply correcting a factual error requires multiple references then I would suggest the entire internet as a reference. This should be fixed right away. --Baronvon 19:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually I'm quite sure the autobiography states Jenna, I remember checking this very fact. Yes, here, study guide. But besides that, Forbes says "was born Jenna Massoli". The Age says "was born Jenna Massoli". Rolling Stone says "born in Las Vegas as Jenna Marie Massoli". --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You shouldn't just read excepts from online clips of the book. You have to obtain the book and read it and understand it.

Her birth name is Jennifer:

• [3]
• [4] scroll to the bottom
• [5] (published research)
• [6]
• [7]

And these are just the first few selections from a google search on Jennifer Massoli. Come on, do some research.

This is from a book excerpt from Amazon.com: [8] and here: [9]

Really, it is looks bad for Wikipedia to have misinformation so blatant that child could see it is wrong. Correct her birth name. --Baronvon 19:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I read the book, and am quite sure it says Jenna. But thanks for the Amazon link -- the one you provided isn't actually to an excerpt from her autobiography, but they also have that. Here is a link to her autobiography. [10] "Search inside this book" for Massoli. on Page 86: "... sat down in the kitchen and tried to figure out what name I wanted to use. My birth name, Jenna Massoli, sounded too Godfather; ..." and other refs. Now "Search inside this book" for Jennifer. It always refers to someone else. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that none of the links posted by Baronvon above are particularly reliable... Valrith 20:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say they were any more reliable than the links already posted such as the"askmen" and the E! website. They just recopiied old press releases. I am telling you that you should do research. If all you do is read limited excerpts from books online you will not get the information. That seems to be the problem with the internet. It makes people lazy. If you re-read my comment above I did not say that the excerpt was from her autobiography. Also she is referring to herself by her nickname in her autobiography. I would suggest you obtain the book and read if you want to use that as a reference. I am positive her birth name is Jennifer. You seem to keep pulling up lame websites that wouldn't pass muster as reference.--Baronvon 21:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Chill dude... you're preaching to the choir here about doing research on these people: AnonEMouse was the one who found many of the the sources for this article, and I find some more. As well, I've been merrily working through many of the articles here about other porn stars adding citations and doing research to back things up. Now I want to point out that Wikipedia's policy on verifiability is clear: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." (emphasis mine) As AnonEMouse points out, we have three reliable sources that clearly gives her birth first name as being "Jenna". It is up to you Baronvon to clearly prove otherwise.

Now I do have Jenna's book, and I will give it a re-read this weekend to see if she clearly gives her birth name as Jennifer. Tabercil 22:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Baron, I read the book. The real book. On paper. From dead trees. By holding it in my little furry paws and flipping pages. I've said so N times already. It says "Jenna Massoli". When it says Jennifer it's referring to a friend. It's 600 pages long, so I don't have it memorized, but you can find a place where it says "Jennifer Massoli", you will have to give chapter and page number so we can check. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 12:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I concede. I also found independent confirmation that it is Jenna--Baronvon 14:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Measurements

Jenna's measurements are listed as: 36DD-23-33 (110-58-84 cm); 1 inch is about 2.56 cm, so at least one of the bust measurements is wrong (26" = 92cm; 110cm = 43"). If anyone knows which is correct, please fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steevm (talk • contribs) 03:00, August 17, 2007

• Actually, there are 2.54 cm to an inch (see Conversion_of_units). So, if 36-23-33 were correct in inches, the cm version would be 91-58-84. However, both IAFD and AFDB show 32-22-33, and since the article provides no reference for this infobox item, I used that to get 81-56-84. I've updated both measurement sets in the infobox with these. Valrith 21:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• She went back to her natural boobs after having her implants removed. Now her boobs are 32 C. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.250.139 (talk) 10:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Vivid Company reference

Under the Business heading the third paragraph references Vivid Entertainment as the world's largest adult film company. This is incorrect, as Private_Media_Group as much larger than Vivid and is publicly traded. Using Vivid's own stated numbers as a privately held company they are less than one tenth the size of Private. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baronvon (talk • contribs) 14:44, August 29, 2007

Here's the quote from the Forbes article referenced: "Vivid, the world's largest adult film company, with $100million in sales in 2004, distributes and markets ClubJenna films for a 30% cut of sales." What's your source? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, while we're waiting for Baronvon to reply, I did some digging. Google Finance reports the 2005 Total Revenue as being 27.7 million euros (that's the oldest time frame on the site). The Bank of Canada currency converter says that on Jan 3/05, $1 USD was worth 0.74 euros. So that 27.7 converts to $37 million USD, which is well below the figure Forbes gives. Tabercil 17:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Financials for major adult entertainment:

     Playboy Enterprises: $331.1 Million [11]
     Dennis Publishing Ltd: $106 Million [12]
     Vivid Entertainment Group: $100 Million [13]
     Private Media Group: $38.4 Million [14]
   
     So Vivid is at least third in adult companies, despite what the Forbes article states.  
     Unfortunately I used Luke Ford as a reference:      
     [15] which states Private is the   
     largest firm deep in the article. Going back two years Private had larger revenues. 

baronvon (UTC)

• Ah, but you just changed the comparison field. You just said "third in adult companies" which is different from what Forbes wrote was a narrower area of comparison: "adult film company". Dennis Publishing is a print outfit and the closest they are to being in adult is publishing lad's mags like Maxim and Stuff; last I looked in the editions which appear in Canada, there wasn't even topless women. Playboy Enterprises is the king of the hill, but they're both film and print. Vivid is video only. Tabercil 23:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't change anything. Whatever you choose to call it, Vivid is not the "world's largest adult film company" as indicated in the article, nor is the largest company in the adult industry. Their new film production has dropped dramatically in recent years. They are releasing a lot of compilations. In case you haven't notice technology has affected all of the major firms. Dennis Publishing has internet publishing, video and other content delivery. Playboy, Vivid, Private and Dennis Publishing are in the exact same category according to Yahoo and Google financials. That is where I got the info, it is right from the site. Vivid is NOT video only. If it was they probably would be out of business. Internet income fuels a very large portion of their income, as does sales of softcore versions of their product to cable and to the hospitality industry. Playboy's revenues are now largely derived from softcore versions of videos also being sold to the hospitality industry and internet content. Dennis Publishing, Inc. includes successful brand extensions ranging from more than 25 international editions, worldwide websites, worldwide mobile telephone content delivery to branded network and cable television programs, a satellite radio channel and various successful branded product line extensions. Dennis Publishing produces adult magazines and films in the UK which includes topless and hardcore as well as magazines like Maxim. There is almost no way not to compete in almost all formats if each major company is to stay competetive, which is why the financials have them listed in the same category. The Wiki for Vivid Entertainment Group states that "Vivid Entertainment Group is the world's largest adult film company" however the link referencing this goes to the Vivid website and it only states that Vivid is the "world's leading adult entertainment company." That should be changed as well. Therefore to come back to my original point, Vivid is not the the world's largest adult entertainment company, nor is it the worlds largest adult video company. The comment should be changed. --Baronvon 05:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Fine, fine. I've changed the text in question to show Forbes as being the source for the statement of them being "world's largest adult film company." It's hairsplitting but should put the matter to bed. Tabercil 14:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

You just have a link to general info for Forbes, you should use the reference used above by anonEmouse which references the specific article about Vivid. It is ironic that all of the Club Jenna girls mentioned in that article no longer work for her. --Baronvon 20:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Retired?

I just heard on G4TV's Attack of the Show on January 20,2008 at 12:20 A.M EST, that Jenna Jameson has retired from the Porn Industy. 71.49.232.211 (talk) 05:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Not quite - she's retired from performing, as our article mentions, but presumably she will still manage ClubJenna. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)