Talk:SuicideGirls

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

from Vfd[edit]

On 14 Mar 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/SuicideGirls for a record of the discussion. —Korath (Talk) 01:00, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

So is Wikipedia going to have a page now for every porn site out there? It looks pathetic if Wikipedia is trying to be taken seriously as an encyclopedia. Is every website and web community now going to get their own advert and ego stroking here too? What a waste of Wikipedia's potential. It cheapens the whole ideal. It's a shame that trash like this has to be in with the amazing work that others have put in with the rest of the site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.202.238.192 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 27 July 2005


this is a project of the people,and people like naked chicks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.46.49.98 (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yigaelspatio comments[edit]

Suicidegirls isn't just "any" porn site.

Not only did it pioneer a genre, it also helped make porn "acceptable" for a lot of people who would be repulsed by conventional material.

I don't think of any earlier porn sites built up a community around sexual content - with full participation by the models (many of whom were members of the site before becoming models.

I don't think that all porn should have an entry in wikipedia - certainly Playboy, Betty Paige, Russ Meyer, Larry Flint and - for its own unique contribution - SG

- albion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yigaelspatio (talk • contribs) 03:55, 30 August 2005

Bzzt. Even within the context of alt porn, subjectively, NakkidNerds can lay claim to that, as per AltPorn, by about four years. SG just happens to be the most famous. Achromatic 14:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for noting that – I wrote most of the "Altporn" article, in part to clear up the misconception that Suicidegirls "started" altporn. That, of course, completely ignores Stephen Sayadian, Richard Kern, Blue Blood, NakkidNerds, EroticBPM, etc. Suicidegirls just popularized the genre. Saying Suicidegirls started altporn a bit like saying Green Day started punk rock. Iamcuriousblue 17:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article useful[edit]

I came across this SG from a Google search and wanted to know what it was all about. I am thankful Wikipedia had an answer. I think Vfd is just a hypocritical, Puritanical prude. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael D. Wolok (talk • contribs) 14:26, 22 May 2006

Note that VfD stands for "vote for deletion", not the name of a user. And hardly anybody is saying this article doesn't belong on Wikipedia, especially with as much press as SuicideGirls has gotten. The only complaints have come from John Gohde, who first proposed the VfD (which was resoundingly rejected) and anonymous user 172.202.238.192 (who as far as I know might be John Gohde). Iamcuriousblue 21:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

83.226.121.83 comments[edit]

What does the girls earn? // ix —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.226.121.83 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 4 August 2005

$300 per set last I heard (I unfortunately can't remember the source); I don't know if that figure is still current. Iamcuriousblue 17:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its just been raised to $500/set according to this discussion. SuicideGirls still maintains its controversial "exclusive" rights (which prevent models from working from any site that SG considers competition) and buries it in the fine print of their modeling contract. Iamcuriousblue 05:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion only, from experience: one of the things that raises models ire has been that, especially in the genre of 'adult' modelling, keeping models under contract, and then a two year non-compete clause following cessation, for the paltry sum of $300/$500 is oppressive and unusual. Of course, no-one made said models sign, either. Achromatic 05:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As of Oct. 2006 they are offering $300/set and the models also sign away rights to pictures and how they will be posted contrary to what the article claims about their control. Moving pics to an archive is hardly removing them, they are still available to any paying member and the models have no control over this. This is all included on the websites T&C for applicants. It may also be interesting to note that since SG owns all images, these girls will never get royalties for SG posting their pics in any form of media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.109.133 (talk • contribs) 05:26, 4 November 2006
This is incorrect. Payment per set is now $500.00. It has been for months.

154.20.161.143 comments[edit]

Rock musician Courtney Love is a member of the site, and frequently leaves "rambling, stream-of-consciousness posts on the site."

what is being cited? there is no link to source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.161.143 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 3 September 2005

  • It was from one of the stories in the external links section; I've made it a direct cite. 66.108.112.133 03:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bleached[edit]

Is it worth noting somewhere that, out of the 700 models claimed in the article, only a handful are non-aryan? Granted, the site relies upon the models submitting themselves, but still. It's pan-global and has models from all corners of the developed, internetted world. The owners are presumably aware of this issue, because they have one of the few non-white girls on the site's inventory page. [1] That didn't just happen by itself. -Ashley Pomeroy 17:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find media sources noting or criticizing that aspect of the site's content, by all means, add a reference to it. Otherwise, I question how appropriate it would be, because it would probably violate our policies against original research or POV to make your own original observations in such a way. It may not even be relevant to this specific subject, because the racial balance of the site's models may have absolutely nothing to do with their own editorial practices, but perhaps more with the demographics of who has internet access, or the culture of what women take interest in such a thing. In that sense, it would be a comment more about race and the internet, or race and American erotica (how many minority Playboy Playmates have there been?), or probably most significantly, race and subculture (goth, punk, etc.), than about race and SuicideGirls specifically. Bringing the issue up yourself without the context of a cited source would make it impossible to understand the issue or its relevance in this manner, or to separate the facts from your views about it. Postdlf 16:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is a regular subject on our bulletin boards. Try here, here, and here for accusations and responses.
Cigarette 22:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC) (SuicideGirls member Clov)[reply]

External Links[edit]

Since this is turning into an editing war I've removed all of the links. The current links are to the company and that is it. If there's additional links that source info provided in the article then please source them directly in the article rather than in the external links section. That will prove relevance. Having articles, be they good or bad press, sourced in the story and then repeated in the external links is redundant and if they are not sourced in the story then there's no reason to include them. Sean Bonner 07:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted again. Please do not do continue this edit war. The purpose of external links is to show a balanced spectrum of opinion about the subject, thereby enhancing NPOV, and to provide sourcing for the facts in the article. SG is currently involved in a major controversy, as noted in the media and blogosphere. Much of the coverage of that is, necessarily, going to be critical. And as a matter of style and format, the broader context articles belong in the external links section, while specific source references are cited inline. Many persons or businesses which have WP articles are controversial, and there is ample precedent and policy to permit the inclusion of links which cover the controversy, from all sides. Go look at a couple hundred articles of that type. MCB 19:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(A good example is the article Plame affair, which features both inline/footnote citations for specific references, and a broad spectrum of opinion and background in the External Links section. MCB 19:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]
I agree with MCB. That wasn't a proper solution. And in fact, at least a couple of the links at the enand it has been confirmed that these images are from "archived models" most of which were part of the model backlash noted in this entry, it seems prudent to add this information to that section.--Conceptualpete 00:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resale of pictures to other sites confirmed by media source.[edit]

http://altporn.net/2006/06/05/blueblood-responds-to-rumors-regarding-suicidegirls-content-sale http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stories/documents/05016155.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petewa77 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 9 June 2006

1) Sign your Talk page posts.
2) Almost - except your first link is not from an actual, citable news source, and the second link does not even seem to mention (nevermind confirm) image resale.
Please revisit Wikipedia's guidelines and consider writing from a neutral point-of-view. And check out a dictionary, for the definition of the word "confirm". --relaxathon 06:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GodsGirls[edit]

Minor I know, but saying GodsGirls is an "offshoot" of SuicideGirls is laying credit for the birth of a genre or even of the idea of a porn site at SG's door - inaccurate. The presence of people involved in both sites is not causation for the later's creation. Achromatic 13:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Obviously SG should not be credited with the origination of the genre, but the chronology and comments from people involved seem to indicate that GG was started specifically as a response to the management treatment of models at SG. I believe that to be true, but I'm not sure if it is verifiable for Wikipedia purposes. --MCB 16:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
GodsGirls did not start as a "response to management treatment of models at SG". GG is its own business and not owned by any of the models. (I had added some material to the GodsGirls article on the ownership of GG, but it was removed due to disagreement over the credibility of the source of the information.) However, many of the models who had problems with the way they were treated by Sean and Selena at SG ended up going over to GG and also DeviantNation. One thing that I will say about GodsGirls and DeviantNation is, although SG hardly deserves credit for starting altporn, GG and DN definitely started well after the success of SG and in many way model themselves after SG. GodsGirls is even alleged to have copied source code from the SuicideGirls site (the GodsGirls article has more details on this). Iamcuriousblue 17:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the GodsGirls article itself says, "GodsGirls partially arose from a highly-publicized dispute between former SuicideGirls models and that site's owners", which is what I was referring to. If that's not correct, it should not be in the article; if it is correct, then characterizing GG as an "offshoot" of SG is fundamentally accurate. --MCB 19:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you're right to say that the two articles are inconsistent. I will go over the source articles and make sure the language in both the SG and GG articles are accurate and consistent. However, I'll reiterate the fact that the owners/designers of GG were never affiliated in any way with SG (though many of the models were), therefore, I think the word "offshoot" is inaccurate. Iamcuriousblue 21:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps "reaction" or "response" might be a better term; you're right that "offshoot" (like "spin-off") tends to imply affiliation or association or a parent-child company relationship. But there is undoubtedly a conceptual connection. --MCB 22:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good – as I said, I'll read over some of the source material again to clarify what the relationship is. Iamcuriousblue 23:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All looks good - some good changes I like the way the article is shaping up. Achromatic 05:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is Olivia Ball still an owner?[edit]

A minor detail, but I came across this when doing research for some of the rewrites I've been doing. For the ownership of SuicideGirls, we have the following info:

The site is privately co-owned; in addition to Suhl and Mooney, co-owners include Steve Simitzis (server admin and SG user, "s5") and his wife Olivia Ball (site programmer and SuicideGirl). [2]

However, Olivia has been missing from SG since April 2006 and all of her photosets and her userpage have been taken down, something that's been noted in several places. [3] [4] [5] On the SuicideGirls staff page, there's a picture stating "i am a suicidegirls robot" where Olivia used to be listed. [6] The only semi-official statement is one from Missy Suicide/Selena Mooney stating:

Sometimes people just need their privacy. I think everyone has felt that way on occassion. It is hard to be in the public eye and for personal reasons she is taking a bit of a break from it. Please respect her wishes.

I get the feeling there was a falling out, and Olivia may or may not be still a co-owner. There's not enough to go on to change anything on the Wikipedia page, but keep an eye out for anything official on the subject and revise the ownership info accordingly should such info come out. Peter G Werner 06:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to court documents (testimony under trial), SaturnV (Olivia and Steve's company), neither were owners is the legal sense of SG. They had a contracted retainer fee, were paid for additional services, and a 15% profit sharing agreement. Some people, thinking of public companies, confuse profit sharing with ownership. Of course, many businesses offer profit sharing without ownership. There was a contractual agreement with SaturnV, not an ownership. (trial transcripts available on PDF from suicidegirlx.com) --Conceptualpete 02:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going by what was stated on this SG page, which states that the owners are Sean, Missy, s5, and Olivia, except that Olivia appears to have left subsequent to when that was written. Iamcuriousblue 06:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles[edit]

I deleted the majority of links to articles. After all, Wikipedia is not a Repository of Links. I kept one of the stories that gives background (I picked that one pretty arbitrarily), the video, what appeared to be the most in-depth article about the "defection" and the one about selling images to other sites. Cigarette 23:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those were originally references for the article that were originally under the section header "references" ("Cynical, Bitter, Jaded as Hell. Also Naked" is one of a few sources that I used to create this article). I don't see any harm in links to on-topic articles in notable media outlets being included, and I don't think that's the type of link that the WP:NOT statement was trying to avoid. Postdlf 23:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the one who added about half of the links, and I think several of them were quite important. Several, such as the one Postdlf mentioned, were used as references in writing the article, even if not properly cited, while others were good sources of information that might have been used in expanding the article. Cigarette gutted the list of links in a pretty arbitrary and capricious way based on an arbitrary interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines. I'm therefore reverting his edit. Iamcuriousblue 10:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the external links are included as references in the article itself, there's no need to cite them in the External Links section. External Links to news articles are not appropriate in an article in which the pertinent information from the sites has already been paraphrased and cited. So eventually, everything there except for the links to suicidegirls.com, SuicideGirlX, sgirls, and the Press clippings page should be deleted. Cigarette 23:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When the original article was written, many of the articles that were used as sources were not cited as inline citations, but were rather given as a reference list at the end of the article. That was later incorporated into the external links list. This is not, Wikipedia best practices, I understand, but appropriate incorporation of these references into the article takes time, since I'm not sure if the original author is still around. Plus, I have added links to very early articles that provide information that could well be incorporated into future versions of the article. Your slash-and-burn approach to link deletion and too-literal reading of minor Wikipedia link rules is rather unhelpful here, quite frankly. Iamcuriousblue 02:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I did not continue pressing for immediate deletion. However, this article has more external links than any of the first two weeks of featured articles this month. Is there any doubt that almost all of those links should become inline references and not be in the External Links? And I don't understand how that can be "too literal". The links I mentioned above are news articles, which do not belong in External Links. It's pretty cut and dry. Cigarette 15:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SteampunkGirls[edit]

I deleted the external link to SteampunkGirls on the grounds that there is no evidence that the site is intended as a parody of SuicideGirls (as opposed to any number of similar sites, or softcore/pinup sites in general); plus, the site (1 page) is pretty trivially minor. I don't think it would meet the criteria in WP:EL. --MCB 23:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reverted[edit]

Recent edit had removed factual information about the site (i.e. the existence of the archives), added misplaced "information" (i.e. supposed getting kicked of BME with vague link under "Site Features"), some basic typos, and removed language referring to the "pin-up" style of the site. The random interjection of "howevers" and such are obviously biased and could send the article back toward the road to deletion --Conceptualpete 04:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

As an adult looking out for the wellfare of teenagers, I am thankful that Wikipedia has the information (and that I did not have to go to the site, which is obviously and necessarily biased). When I read that one of the teenagers with whom I work is interested in being a "future Suicide Girl," a term with which I am unfamiliar, I am grateful that modern encyclopedias such as Wikipedia allow people such as me to update my knowledge in order to address these teenagers' "goals" (and the reasons behind such goals). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.56.66.84 (talk • contribs) .

I think you comment is tremendously important, because it illustrates that content which might not be considered purely encyclopedic (at least by Encyclopedia Britannica standards) does belong on Wikipedia. I think that is shows that there is a cultural change going on, and Wikipedia is a major referencing tool for daily use. I for example use it all the time, also to look up trivial facts, slang I might not know, and background information about mundane stuff, not only to do scientific research. Where to draw the line, belongs or belongs not on Wiki, is not always easy, but we should be more tolerant. Why not introduce a script that proposes a topic that hasn't been viewed by users for x months for deletion, automatically? This would rid Wiki of trivial topic no one cares about, but leave intact topics that are actually of interest. --Mister Denial (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Altporn article nominated for deletion[edit]

The wikipedia article on Altporn has been nominated for deletion. Discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Altporn. Iamcuriousblue 06:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

more lawsuits by SG[edit]

According to [7], SG has served papers to GodsGirls, amongst others. This is hearsay so far, but might be worth noting. --moof 06:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

You know, I can understand why somebody wanted to trim down the earlier large number of external links. However, the fact that valuable, unique, potential source articles were dumped while links that were duplicates of already existing under references says to me that somebody was pretty much dumping links at random without thinking about what the hell they were doing. Not a smart way to edit. Also, the dropping of pages critical of SuicideGirls is definitely not good from an NPOV point of view.

If re-edited the external links page, re-adding links I thing are valuable/important and dropping ones that duplicated what's in the reference list. I readded the links to pages critical of SG – those need to be there for the sake of balance. Iamcuriousblue 03:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup[edit]

The reason I put the tag up is that the text prior to "Website features" is a disorganized mess. This material really needs to be consolidated and organized into proper sections. Lead sections in WP articles are supposed to be simple, brief summaries of the rest of the article. Iamcuriousblue 03:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies: Nazi imagery[edit]

This latest controversy involving SuicideGirls really needs some kind of verifiable reference if its going to be kept. Editors should not add contentious information to an article unless its verifiable. Iamcuriousblue 23:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it looks like this is actually verifiable: [8] [9]. A statement by Missy Suicide on a SuicideGirls board should meet the criteria of WP:VERIFY and the caveats of WP:SELFPUB.
However, I see that somebody else has taken out this section entirely. I'm neither here nor there about including this – is this a significant enough controversy to make note of in a Wikipedia article? Not sure. Iamcuriousblue 03:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better Business Bureau[edit]

Shouldn't the "F" rating of the company by the BBB be mentioned? I came on here to find out more information about why the rating was applied and what the company's response was, and was disappointed to find absolutely nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.217.226.157 (talk) 08:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot report : Found duplicate references ![edit]

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "Defense" :
    • [http://www.wweek.com/editorial/3210/7126/ "Suicide Defense"] by Ian Demsky, ''[[Willamette Week]]'', January 11, 2006.
    • {{cite web| author=Willamette Week Online| title=Suicide Defense|url=http://www.wweek.com/editorial/3210/7126/| accessdate=2007-01-14}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 21:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Repitition

I deleted the line "There are girls from every continent including Antarctica featured on the site." from the "models" section because it was nearly identical to a line in the section immediately following it. LordShonus (talk) 08:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

nazi imagery[edit]

I (secondly) removed the section regarding Nazi imagery. It's possibly encyclopedic, but not when it's simply cited to the SG message boards. tedder (talk) 06:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confused about this. The source is the message boards but the person posting on the boards is Missy Suicide who I understand is one of the owners of the site. As such, the announcements amount to a press-release or other official statement by a party. Is your position that the Nazi imagery didn't happen? Or is it that it might have happened but the postings by Missy aren't verification enough? Or that it's not really encyclopedic? If it's the first two then wouldn't it be more appropriate to leave in the sections with [citation needed] tags? Lot 49atalk 15:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My feeling is that it probably happened, but WP:V says "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources". Additionally, WP:BURDEN says leaving {{fact}} tags isn't good enough for fairly strong statements. tedder (talk) 15:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why the primary source isn't good enough. Da-rb (talk) 21:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable secondary sources." Forums aren't terribly reliable, and even if it's a "good" primary source, would you build an article around press releases? tedder (talk) 21:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have to agree with Tedder -- actually, my reasoning is a little different though. As it stands, it appears the incident was not mentioned by any secondary sources; so we don't really have any basis for concluding that the incident was significant to anybody outside the message board or SG community. If a secondary source can be produced, I think the primary source could probably be used to supplement it, and provide detailed information; but in the absence of any independent criticism or commentary, I don't think this info belongs in the Wikipedia article. -Pete (talk) 06:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what was taken out[edit]

For reference:

Nazi imagery[edit]

On October 15, 2007, a set of model Nana was posted containing a SS Totenkopf skull pin, as well as photos surfacing of Nana posing in Nazi uniform on separate occasions.[1] The following response was issued by the site.

"We have added Nana to the archive. Many people have brought up the arching of Eve because she posted images of herself in a full Nazi uniform. It was not in a halloween context or just an arm band, and has been asserted recently, it was a full on uniform and she was in the hail pose, clear cut black and white, Nazi support. While the Nazi symbolism in Nana's set was subtle and unfamiliar to me, the skull pin is not a symbol that is taught in US schools as being representation of the Nazis. Since this incident people have e-mailed me several pictures of Nana in nazi uniforms. I do not feel a girl who hangs out in Nazi uniforms all the time is a good representation of the site."[2]

References

  1. ^ "We are removing NANA's "nanohana" set" by Missy Suicide, SuicideGirls board, October 16, 2007, 9:36 AM.
  2. ^ "We are removing NANA's "nanohana" set" by Missy Suicide, SuicideGirls board, October 16, 2007, 1:26 PM.

Cleanup[edit]

I've tried to clean the article up but am inexperienced even if I obviously know some of the lingo already. We can discuss stuff here. Azhuras (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other celebrity members include:[edit]

Does this add any valuable information to this article? It seems more like marketing material they would use to entice more subscriptions than relevant information. Additionally, the references for these are simply links to profiles on the site which often don't even feature the name of the person the article is claiming.NebraskaDontAsk (talk) 00:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mu;ltip;le issues tag[edit]

I've removed the tags at the top of the page. I only saw talk relating TO ONE of those tags anD it was quite old. (points up) If we think they should go back, they need to be supported by talk page comments. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 23:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

external links[edit]

Critics[edit]

Articles[edit]

I do not believe that these satisfy the external links guideline. Are there any that it is believed do so? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 23:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many of those were used as sources when I first started this WP article many years ago, but without inline citations, so some other editor unfortunately migrated them down to the EL section. So the ones that are reliable secondary sources about SuicideGirls should be integrated into the WP article as references. postdlf (talk) 01:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of two images[edit]

Any support for these removed images? diff - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 23:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced them because they are freely licensed and highly relevant to the subject (easily considered the website's defining content), not "uncalled for," whatever that means. If you check the article's edit history, you'll see that they have been in the article for a long time and have been repeatedly restored by multiple editors whenever someone has removed them simply for the irrelevant reason that they depict nudity. Do you have an argument as to why they don't properly illustrate this article? postdlf (talk) 00:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Err, what's with ""uncalled for," whatever that means"? Not required, justified or deserved? It's a pretty standard word formation, I'd have thought.
It's not "irrelevant" that they include nudity, it's clearly the point. It stretches good faith beyond all sensibility to say these two images are required to both "exhibiting the multiple piercings and tattoos characteristic of SuicideGirls" as well as "showcasing the less-heavily tattoed and pierced style of some SuicideGirls." There are two images below that show girls with tattoos, one of which is of better quality and of a well-known SG. With respect to piercings, you can't even see the piercings well from the thumbnail image. This is supported by guidelines as well, from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images, Choosing images section we see
  • Pertinence and encyclopedic nature "Images are primarily meant to inform readers by providing visual information." The information that these images claim to offer (that some SGs have tattos and some don't) does not require these photos to provide it. "Articles that use more than one image should present a variety of material near relevant text" applies hers as well. The fact that "most" have tattoos is uncited anyway, so do we need two images telling us that some do and some don't?
  • Wikipedia:Offensive material is my next stop, as the next MOS section sends me there. "Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." It clearly isn't required to illustrate this fairly weak point that some have tattoos. "Not censored" does give not special favor to offensive content.
And do you have pointers to previous discussions and/or places in the history? With respect, I'm not going looking for them as you're the one making the claim that they are there, thus it's your responsibility to provide the evidence.
Have a good day, young sir,
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 13:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This still reads like I'm a bit of a jerk, but I didn't mean it like that at all. -_- Read it in Big Bird's voice, it'll take the sting out.
Mere depiction of bare breasts falls so far short of being "vulgar" or "obscene" that I don't think that merits further comment, particularly in light of the fact that SuicideGirls is primarily known as an alt porn/erotica site, which makes the informational relevance of an example of that erotica beyond question. So I still haven't seen an inkling of an argument (or, really, a counterargument at this point) as to why neither of the images are not appropriate in this article. If someone had added graphic images of analingus, BDSM, or bloodletting (all featured at one point or another on the SG site as I understand), I might agree that they were distractingly provocative, but these are incredibly tame.

I never personally thought two images were required and I don't remember why there are two. Feel free to remove one as redundant. I didn't write the captions either, but the main reason the images are in the article is because they are representative of the style, subject, and nature of the SuicideGirls site content. The photo of the models at the book signing obviously doesn't serve the same purpose. The book cover, though of better quality and of a more well known SG model, is not a freely licensed image and should probably be removed anyway as failing NFCC. postdlf (talk) 16:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "mere depiction" of breasts may be considered vulgar. It's utterly nonsensical to suggest otherwise: Janet Jackson's nipple is the most egregious example, but there are countless others. Breastfeeding mothers get hassled in public, for goodness' sake. Re-read the guideline I pointed you to, and note that it says it's not your opinion that matters. My personal opinion on the breasts is equally unimportant in light of the really simple fact that people do consider such depictions vulgar. The foundation is very nearly shoving image filtering down our throat because of poor editorial decisions like these, see here. Most importantly, these images are not even very good at doing what they are purported to be doing. The most disappointing thing about this is that there are thousands of images that show the supposed material better, even if it was agreed it needed to be in there which it's not. Agreed. There's even an image from the same set that shows the piercings and tattoos much more clearly, but doesn't involve nudity, see here. It's just an excuse to stick some breasts in, this argument is. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 07:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS - Further, the "style, subject, and nature" you're attempting to display is synthetic.
Your SYNTH claim is just plain nonsense. I read that Foundation Resolution, and I think you selectively read it mainly by ignoring the first paragraph. An image of female breasts displayed in an article, well scrolled down from the top, that starts with defining the subject as "a website that features softcore pornography" certainly follows a "principle of least astonishment" in that no one reasonable should be "astonished" to see nudity in this article. Anyone not wanting to risk seeing any nudity would obviously would stop reading at the top. There are obviously people in the world who would also find even the book cover image of the topless girl viewed only from the back vulgar. And that again is something you're understanding from the Foundation Resolution or WP:NOTCENSORED: even where the content is "of a sexual, violent or religious nature, [and] may be offensive to some viewers," we do not cater to such individual or sectarian sensibilities by removing it where it is relevant, informative, and shouldn't surprise anyone given the subject. But I did replace the images with another that I think is more representative. I don't think there is anything more to discuss here. postdlf (talk) 13:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(undent)

  • When we form our own opinions by putting things together that aren't sourced, it's synthesis. You reckon that most (some? a few?) SG models have tatoos and piercings, so you then reckon that this is a representative image.
    • There are 2,348 SG models in the archives. Including those models who posted their images but did not score the one-year gig, there are over 10,000 models. You're really comfortable that you've looked over enough of those to make that judgement?
    • Not that you're allowed to make that judgement. The section on models has just {{fact}} next to the "Most of the models have nontraditional appearance modifications such as colored hair, dreadlocks, piercings, more extreme body modifications, or tattoos." paragraph.
    • The SG main page (if you're not logged in) just says "SuicideGirls is a community that celebrates ALTERNATIVE BEAUTY and alternative culture from all over the world." The capitalised words simply link to the models pages, not to something that says "lots of tatoos and piercings."
    • If you don't have a source that most (some? a few?) of the models have these characteristics, you can't simply decide it's obvious and pick an archetype.
  • How is this image relevant and informative? Caption: ""Irenella", one of the many tattooed and pierced SuicideGirls models in a photograph from the site." What is it meant to convey, via the image, that cannot be conveyed via text? That some of the girls have piercings and tattoos?
  • With respect to "least surprise," this is pretty matter of factly intended to cover articles like breast or vulva, not "anything that has porn in the name we can put juggs in." I did a small sample of other articles before I got bored:
  • If, as you claim, you're simply trying to illustrate the tattoos and/or piercings (and not just splashing the tits around) why are we not using some other images from that same Flickr feed? Like this or this or this or [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22] ... And that's looking at less than 10% of the available images.
  • Assume good faith is not a suicide pact. (No pun intended.)

Aaron Brenneman (talk) 12:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC) I've asked for a third opinion on this.[reply]

  • Saw this on Malleus' page. In my opinion, a single free nude from the website or related flickr feed is appropriate. The website deals in softcore pornography, so one would expect its models to be au naturel. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Crisco. Not to include one such image in an article about a soft pornography site smacks of puritanism to me. Malleus Fatuorum 13:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

Just did a quick search; there are a couple decent academic sources out there that could be used to improve the article:[23][24]. At a glance, the article seems to rely a bit too much on primary sources. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 00:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

SuicideGirls → Suicide Girls – It is more commonly known as Suicide Girls. Suicide Girls [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] SuicideGirls [30] [31]. See also Google Trends. relisted --Mike Cline (talk) 16:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC) Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 12:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tempted to oppose; we tend to let trademark owners determine whether or not to use CamelCase, and none of the spaced examples you cite are from sources that are about SuicideGirls in particular. Powers T 22:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about the MOSTM mentions this about camelCase Trademarks in CamelCase are a judgment call. CamelCase may be used where it reflects general usage and makes the trademark more readable. Is there some other policy or guideline that states that we defere CamelCase to trademark owners because that statement does not say that and the general usage part seems to go against that since general usage would not even be a factor it trademark owners had the final say?--174.93.165.157 (talk) 18:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Porn? Or modeling?[edit]

I don't have access to their whole catalog, but do they qualify as porn? It seems more like adult modeling. Porn would seem to imply some kind of sexual activity is portrayed, but so far as I know they don't do that. Do they?

For those who think the distinction is useless: A woman posing in a bikini is modeling. A woman having sex in a bikini is porn. What is a woman posing in just panties, like our example picture in the article? Is that porn regardless of whether there is sexual activity? --Golbez (talk) 06:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies: Censorship & Exclusivity agreement and lawsuits[edit]

The Censorship section reads like gossip and the one source cited is a dead link.

The Exclusivity agreement and lawsuits section is full of outdated information and dead links. SG replaced their contract with a model release in 2006 that has no mention of a "Non-Competition" clause. Most of the first paragraph is inaccurate and nowhere near current and all 3 sources are dead links. This is the current model release. In the second paragraph, the sentence "Several former models were also threatened with legal action." has two sources cited, both of which are dead links. Pickleslover (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dead links don't leave the information unverified (or unverifiable). Archived versions may be available online, or in the case of sources like Wired or Willamette Week, the online content is complementary to a print edition. And we don't just report on the present; if circumstances have changed, don't blank the section with "oudated" information. Instead describe the change by supplementing the earlier sources with new ones that give updates and context to the earlier information. postdlf (talk) 00:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. I attempted to properly update the Exclusivity agreement and lawsuits section based on your suggestions. I'm fairly new to editing and doing my best to improve this article but a lot of the info presented here just sounds like 10-year-old gossip and according to WP:V, "While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article." Half of this entire article is devoted to Controversies which seems excessive according to WP:NPOV policy. Pickleslover (talk) 00:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on SuicideGirls. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:53, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on SuicideGirls. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on SuicideGirls. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:30, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on SuicideGirls. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pin-up is a bit inaccurate isn't it? Not a expert on it, but to my knowledge pin-up's are usually scantily-clad risqué at most, SuicideGirls is a porn site. 86.41.149.35 (talk) 19:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SuicideGirls&oldid=1207968950"