Talk:Abbywinters.com/Archive 1

VfD result
This article was nominated for deletion. The result was no consensus to delete. For details, please see Votes for deletion/Abby Winters. -- BD2412 talk July 7, 2005 21:45 (UTC)

suggest page move
This article seems to have more information on abbywinters.com than on Abby Winters herself. How about moving the article and turning Abby Winters into a redirect? --Allen 03:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. mtz206 04:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This change has already been implemented as of this post. Ame Errante 22:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Blog link
This blog should not be linked to by the article. Blogs are links to avoid, and this particular example is not some kind of official Abby Winters blog, nor does it add any particular criticism or insight to the article. It is merely a fan site. --mtz206 13:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * In response to User:24.62.234.10's edit summary: "(Why is this being removed? This is an appropriate external link. It contains an interview with Ms. Winters. If necessary I will get written authorization from Ms. Winters to have this inlcuded)". If this interview is notable, we should link to it directly, not the general site. I will change the link. I am trying to assume good faith, but it is difficult given that 2 of your 3 contributions to WP are links to this kind of blog/fansite.

Glad this page wasn't deleted
I should first declare I am a member of this website.

Abbywinters.com is an exception to most porn/erotica on the internet, in that it has a deep regard for human sexuality and beauty, exhibits high standards in design and photography, is run with an unusual degree of ethics and respect to both models and members, and has fostered a message board section to both inform and promote community discussion. The site warrants a page on WP due to these very unusual qualities.

The site is also growing very successful, and hence may indicate a new trend in porn/erotica on the internet. This could be of interest to someone researching the topic. --Smitten 12:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Charges
But since Garion Hall, the website's owner, has now been charged with child pornography offences, isn't it time this page *was* taken down? Is it not becoming clear now that this company takes advantage of young girls? --86.181.205.181 (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Jon

Wikipedia's policy is based on notability not your morality. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing notable about the Abby Winters entry. If you follow the discussions on this page, it has become quite clear now that there was no such person as Abby Winters, the enterprise is owned by Garion Hall, it's highly likely that it is promotional material by a porn site, contraveneing Wikipedia's guidelines. 86.181.205.181 (talk) 23:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Which is why the article is abbywinters.com, it's about the website not the person. This article is no more "promotional" than any other article on Wikipedia. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 23:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Impartiality
I am concerned that this article is biased in the following ways: Other, less obvious bias may also exist.
 * the article states that 'abby winters is more sensative to her models' needs', but does not state who is being used for comparison, or provide any citations to support this claim.
 * This article states that abbywinters.com is distinguished by its quality but offers no evidence or citations for this claim.

In addition, this article makes several claims about what Abby has indicated, or possible future directions for the site, without stating the source of these claims.

Other than that, it seems like a very well written article.

- Ame Errante 22:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. See also subjective statements like "Winters has a keen eye for staging shoots and posturing of models." I added a POV tag.

Quote: "This article states that abbywinters.com is distinguished by its quality but offers no evidence or citations for this claim." This site: http://www.thebestporn.com/categories_niches/amateur_sex/ gives Abbywinters top spot of over 2000 sites in the 'amateur' category, giving quality of photography as one of the main reasons. The review itself links to several other review sites that say the same. I don't know whether putting that link in the article would offend people, though, so I'm just going to put it here for the moment.

Quote: "the article states that 'abby winters is more sensative to her models' needs', but does not state who is being used for comparison" That's easily fixed.

Quote: "In addition, this article makes several claims about what Abby has indicated, or possible future directions for the site, without stating the source of these claims" The source is the site itself. Should all such statements say "according to the site itself?" If so, go ahead and put that in. An Abby fan 20:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Quote: "See also subjective statements like 'Winters has a keen eye for staging shoots and posturing of models'" I have deleted that paragraph. It looks as though it was written when the article was about Abby the photographer, before it became an article about the website. It's probably redundant now. Is this enough for you to remove the POV tag? An Abby fan 18:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll take that as a yes, then. Am removing the tag. An Abby fan 18:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Advertisement?
I think this article has to be rewritten. It sounds like an advertisement, especially if I'm comparing this entry with more objective porn sites entry such as Suicide Girls or Bang Bus. Stileto 11:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, this is nothing but blatant advertising.

This article should be rewritten because it's not objective in its current format. But questioning the quality of photographs can be handled by referencing qualities one would use to compare internet porn. For example, the Abby Winters highest-quality photos are much larger in pixel resolution than most internet porn, so that could be considered one characteristic of Abby's photography being "high-quality". Other measures of quality include the fact that many of the photos are well-lit and not grainy, but perhaps those characteristics are not so rare to find on the web. However I've found that some of the photos are in need of color correction due to the natural lighting used which had resulted in tinting or a cast in said photos, which would be an indication of poor quality.

As for Abby Winters herself, I'd be more interested in her as a person and artist than as to promoting her financial undertaking as a successful pornographer. How to judge her sensitivity to working with models? Well there seems to be a genuine happiness when the subjects smile into the camera. She does not use obviously-stoned models like lower-quality porn sites. And the abbywinters website does not show models performing BDSM or sperm-drinking or other activities associated with sexual abuse. However, many might find the erotic content unsuitable because when you get right down to it, it's still pornography -- images created for the sole purpose of stimulating sexual desire. Compare to the erotic photography at Met-Art which is less titillating.

Abby Winters is actually a marketing image. There is in fact no woman named Abby Winters, it is in fact the CEO of G Media, Garion Hall.

intro
The intro is not in the style of encyclopedia article and does not conform to the standard Wikipedia format. We should not have the intro read like a disclaimer. --Cab88 03:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Well an anonymous revert without comment to a version commonly viewed as not what I call improvement. I would hope that our anonymous friend expands the article in a positive sense, else I will bring it back to the previous version. Roeschter 22:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Please forgive me for my revert without comment. I meant to come back and discuss it here and then found I did not have time. My problem with the new edit is simply this: the article was not intended "as an example of a publishing genre rather than for its singularity of content."  The purpose of an encyclopaedia article is to inform the reader about the subject of the article, not to provide a critique of something general such as contemporary pornography.  There is also something of a high moral tone about the rewrite that to my mind is out of keeping with the NPOV policy of WP.  I do indeed hope to do an edit on this in the near future, though perhaps editing down more than expanding. However I would not be in favour of bringing it back to the previous version.
 * An Abby Fan 09:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that my previous edit was not moving into the right direction. For citing examples of the genre I should have created a meta page on the subject. Now for future suggestions. Pages like this are interesting because they cover aspects of society that are highly subjective in their reception. If an expansion towards a critical discussion is not compatible with Wiki style (I agree on this eventually), it indeeds needs to be reduce to the bare essentials. In more general terms, how do we deal with "subjectivism" on topics that are objectively (their is obviously no wide agreement on the topic) subjective (many different conflicting views ). Other language versions of the Wiki are far more liberal in providing "views" in separate sections of an article rather fighting over facts. Avoiding "views" even when clearly marked out as such and trying to stick to "facts" even when the facts are highly debated, seems to an approach typical for the anglo american world. What do you think. Roeschter 20:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Ownership?
Abby Winters is owned by G Media, which is owned by GM Bill(?). Least Abby Winters CEO and G Media's CEO is Garion Hall. Garion is related to GM Bill, but is he it's CEO aswell? And what is relation to other GM Bill sites like Beautiful Agony, I Shot Myself/I Feel Myself, Sonicerotica.com which are founded by Richard Lawrence (operated aswell under GM Bill's flag). So my question is what is relation of firms? --Zache 15:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that G Media/GMBill owns all of these sites, but that different photographers and creative staff run each site. So Garion Hall runs AbbyWinters.com (and according to some sources, is "Abby Winters"), IFM (and also ISM and Beautiful Agony) is run by Richard Lawrence, and Girls Out West is run by "Annie". Garion Hall is CEO over the whole company. Unfortunately, I don't know if the blog that I saw this on meets the criteria of WP:VERIFY, so I don't think I can add this info to the article. Iamcuriousblue 04:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Skepiticism on identity
Just because someone wrote a blog post expressing skepticism if there is a real "Abby Winters" doesn't make that a reliable source. -- Zim Zala Bim talk  17:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, the person in question was connected to the site at one point, so if we can make that clearer in the article, that'd be great. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 18:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * blog of an unconfirmed identity is not a reliable source: It depends, i think that   if there is blog who says that Abby is Garion, then there is definetly least one who thinks that Abby Winters is pseudonym, same is for different forum writings which can be found or from articles talk page. (which none are reliable sources) For the any facts like Abby is Garion or such, i don't think that they are good enough as source, but for the proof that there is people who think that abby is pseudonym they are pretty solid fact. --Zache 18:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It is true, Abby Winters is the CEO of G Media, Garion Hall.
 * So, if I can find a blog post somewhere that says "I think Abby Winters is a Martian" then we'd be ok to note and cite that? C'mon - this is an encyclopedia, and random musings over who she isn't isn't appropriate. -- Zim Zala Bim talk  18:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Nope, but it is also pretty reasonable to think that porn site's about page is just fictional. (which is articles main source that AW exist). I personally would leave to article just sentence that there is also people who doesn't think that AW is real and leave it without source. I don't believe that anybody can find any "wikipedia" credible info (like BBC) for that if porn site's talepage is real or not. --Zache 18:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Unsourced weasely-worded assertions have no place in an encyclopedia. -- Zim Zala Bim talk  21:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Jeez, I can't believe that was reverted. I don't think there has been anybody claiming that the blogger in question is anybody other than Liandra Dahl, and Dahl is clearly somebody who knows who the AW "insiders" are first hand. I think her claims are as credible as the identity of AW claimed by the AW site itself. Also, you've now reverted from a claim that's sourced, however "dubious" a source a blog is, to a statement that's weasel-worded and unsourced. Iamcuriousblue 23:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If you feel that source is reliable, then re-insert it. I won't revert it back. -- Zim Zala Bim talk  00:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I now agree with Game Collector - this is self published, and as such, isn't sufficient as citation for contentious claims about third parties. -- Zim Zala Bim talk  17:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The blog is not a reliable source and it is up to the editor(s) who wish to keep the information in the article to provide proof that the blog is reliable. We don't have to prove that it's not.  It is by default assumed that a blog is not a reliable source.Game Collector 01:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Proof for sentence "with former Abby Winters model and G Media staffer Liandra Dahl alleging that "Abby Winters" is simply G Media owner Garion Hall".


 * Is there former IFM/ISM/AW model named Liandra? Yes ( [IFM], [ISM], [Abby Winters]), 2.) Is there ex-worker named Liandra who left IFM ? yes: 1, 2, 3.) Is Liandra saying in her own blog that Abby is Garion? Yes. So, sentence is basically true -it is true.
 * Going by your own example, if I previously worked for a company who credited me on their web site, and then fired me, and then I start my own blog saying the CEO had an affair with his wifes sister. Does that automatically make the statement true?  No, it doesn't.  However, if I was a journalist and noted to be a reputable person by a newspaper, it might.  So show me where a reputable source has noted Liandra to be a reputable blogger.Game Collector 01:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So question is if Liandra's blog credible? Surely it is biased, but so is AW:s about page also, but for our luck we can use questionable sources in some cases. WP:SELFPUB --Zache 06:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, not in this particular case, since the blog involves claims about third parties and is obviously contentious.Game Collector 11:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What I'm wondering, is how does one "prove" the blog is a reliable source. This just strikes me as so much rhetoric. The blog is authored by Liandra Dahl, its on-record that Liandra Dahl was a model and staffer for Abby Winters and G Media, and nobody has challenged the fact that Liandra Dahl is the author of the blog in question. How does one "prove" beyond that the blog posts in question were written by Liandra Dahl? However, WP:SELFPUB lays down some very strict policies on such sources (overly strict, IMO), so I guess I can't really challenge that. Iamcuriousblue 23:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that it is self-published means there is no third-party verification that the author actually is Liandra Dahl. Anyone can start a blog claiming to be a person. (Compare to an article written by Tom Friedman in the New York Times, where the presence of editorial control, a large, esablished company, etc, provides more trust that Tom Friedman was the actual author). -- Zim <b style="color:darkgreen;">Zala</b> Bim <sup style="color:black;">talk  23:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I do agree with you that the policies on using blogs as reliable source are strict, but for good reasons. The question isn't necessarily about whether or not Liandra Dahl is indeed the author of the blog, or that the posts were written by her or even that she ever worked for abbywinters.com.  The question is about whether or not what she is saying about someone else is true.  And unless she is noted to be reputable by some other reputable source, it cannot be assumed that she is correct.  A case where a blogger might be considered reputable is let's say a game manufacturer acknowledging a blogger on their web site.  That would make the blogger reputable.Game Collector 01:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * We are in agreement - we cannot presume her assertions are factual, and cannot use her blog as a reliable source. -- Zim <b style="color:darkgreen;">Zala</b> Bim <sup style="color:black;">talk  02:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * But it still doesn't solve our problem how to put to article the info that we doesn't know (as wikipedia editors) if Abby Winters is real or not. Now article pretty much says that she is, which is false and more truthfull wording is that we can't say. --Zache 08:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The Herald Sun of 3 December 2007 quotes Liandra on the subject of the sites she has been on, and also says that she is the author of "Liandra Lets Loose". 83.70.35.69 (talk) 09:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Fictional
Fictional? What evidence is there that AW is fictional?

'Abby Winters' is a character created by the owner of the website, Garion. Garion is often referred to on the message boards as a technician or as someone who handles the 'business side' of the site, however he is, in fact, the owner and founder. This is a widely known fact amongst models and staff. Evidence can be found on the message boards, where in 'Abby' occasionally posts, but rather than leaving her customary 'a' at the end of the post, a 'g' is mistakenly left instead. TurnOff 06:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC) — TurnOff (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * That's more speculation and hearsay than actual evidence, IMHO; definitely not to be presented as a fact. 83.27.42.145 01:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If you go to http://www.abbywinters.com/main.php?page=about look for the name 'Garion' in the yellow box in the upper right corner. Garion is actually the person that is responsible for GMBill accounts...GMBill.com owns abbywinters.com and handles accounts. In the Title 18 page 'Garion Hall' is the custondian of records. It has been also noted in the message boards that the name Abby Winters may only be a pseudonym.Dreammaker182 19:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * AW is owned by G Media / Gmbill (and all of those CEO is Garion) least from year 06.04.2003. and 'ex-model' Liandra Dahl writes that Garion is Abby . But there is no proof that Liandras blogentry is real and it can also be totally fake. So this really doesn't tell us if there is real AW who founded the site in 2000 --Zache 12:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Some digging more: Abby Winters as in australian theatre student Abbagail Winters wrote to usenet in year 1997-2001 . She also keeped nude women photo exhibition at 2002, which links to abbywinters.com.   If Abby Winters is fictional, they have done it pretty long time. --Zache 15:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Although "absence of evidence" does not equate to "evidence of absence", it might be noteworthy that many of the crew (which are all or nearlly all female) appear from time to time in the photos and videos, mentioned by name, yet I don't recall ever seeing anyone identified as the elusive "Abby Winters". She&#39;s So Fine 15:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, i think that there were actual young woman who were porn collector / warez porn trader and she called herself as Abby Winters. She was also orginal starter of AbbyWinters.com at 2000 (like site history says). (usenet/internet archive stuff is evidence for that she existed years before than abbywinters.com and that she is propably female)


 * After that (Speculation): She were running the site least to 2002, but at some point G Media bought the site. Also 'Abby Winters' name doesn't need to be her real name, it can be just internet pseudonym also, and maybe is now used by Garion. --Zache 22:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * From information supplied in the discussion forums by the (now former) staff member who supposedly began the website with Abby Winters in 2000, her date of birth was computed as 13 December 1974. (This used to appear in the article before the rewrite.)  The Australian National Data Centre at http://ast.natdata.net reveals that Garion Hall's date of birth is also 13 December 1974, which seems a great coincidence!  Also, while there is still an Australian company Abbywinters PTY Ltd since 12 December 2003, there is no Abby or Abbagail Winters listed as a shareholder name via the National Data Centre personal name browse function.  If she was involved, it would be strange indeed that the name does not crop up.  Of course, if someone wants now to spend some Australian Dollars and get copies of publicly available documents, the filings by Abbywinters PTY Ltd and GMBill PTY Ltd could be scrutinised.  There is never any mention of "Abby Winters" as the name of a person on any of the press releases for Abbywinters.com as owned and operated by GMBill PTY Ltd in 2007, and all statements about what is happening and what the company is doing are issued either by the VP Jo (Joanne) Mason, or by Garion Hall.  Again, it is very strange, if Abby Winters was still involved in the organisation which bears her name, that the only announcements she makes are in the users' forums.  Of course, for her to make public statements if she doesn't exist would not be exactly legal. Soixante 06:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * New information:
 * There are now several sources of information which may be taken to amplify the position regarding Abby Winters and Garion Hall as two distinct persons. Chief of these ought to be the Press Pack made available by abbywinters.com for the company's appearance at the AVN show in Las Vegas this past week.  This asserts that Abby Winters started the site with Garion Hall, having met through the theatre lighting business, much as a hobby, to see where it led.  When, after a year, it was beginning to take off, and she having other commitments, she handed over the business to Garion Hall, finally leaving in May 2002.  She retains some overall creative control, but that would seem to be all.  A further source is an interview given in October 2007 to AdultDVDTalk at  by Abby Winters and Garion Hall, covering many of the same points.  They talked in addition to Abby Ehmann at ErosZine on 12 November 2007  where the same information is repeated.  I think it is therefore possible, if we can consider that the story is being related as truthfully as we can ascertain, to adjust the Company paragraph to reflect the current position.  I'll leave this to Zache, for the time being.


 * Liandra Dahl's blog doesn't contradict any of the Press Release account. Liandra was employed long after Abby Winters herself had left, did not work in the AbbyWinters office, and, since by Abby Winters's own admission in the interviews that she (Abby) has never set foot in the current offices in Melbourne, to Liandra Abby was synonymous with Garion Hall.Soixante (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

With respect: These are only unconfirmed "Fluff Pieces":

The AW Press Pack was produced by Garion Hall to generate advertising and thus increased sales. This was the purpose of him taking a selection of his personally groomed and trained models all the way from Australia to the AVN show in Las Vegas. It is merely propaganda distributed by him to try to continue to hide the fact he is "Abby". Guess what? "Abby" was not in Las Vegas!

All "interviews" mentioned were again just produced by Garion Hall. Contact the reporters involved to see if they actually spoke face to face with a woman named Abby? Answer: They did not. Liandra Dahl is not he only ex-AW Model or staff member to confirm that Garion Hall has always pretended to be "Abby" and posted in the site's forums as "Abby". Liandra Dahl has actually posed nude in front of cameras operated by Garion Hall. Does anyone think she could not see who was holding the camera?


 * I mailed to ErosZine, lets see if they will answer. About your comment, of course the AW Press Packs are ads, but how you can know that interview by Abby Ehmann of ErosZine or ADultDVDTalk are fake? Tms. there is words by Liandra Dahl (who has grudge with the company) against words by ErosZine and AdultDVDTalk which arent involved with the company. In this case i trust later ones more because i don't see the direct gain for them to lie.  --Zache (talk) 18:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is possible to look at this whole issue as one of an elaborate and consistently managed hoax which has been perpetuated for 8 years or so. In which case, it has been done with surprising consistency, don't you think?  And that has involved many other people in the fiction.  You could argue that the murmurings on this page stirred the company into action last October, particularly with their wish to increase their press profile, so that, as a damage limitation exercise, "interviews" were set up and conducted on-line, with Garion Hall purporting to answer both for his fictional Abby Winters as for himself.


 * But then, has anybody followed up the "Abbagail Winters" of the usenet groups in the late 1990s, who was sharing pictures, and which may have led to the website in 2000? She is asked in one posting about recommending theatre tech courses in Australia, and says she can particularly recommend the one at Charles Sturt University in Wagga, with the strong implication that she went there.  If someone would care to investigate whether there was such a person (or a Garion Hall!) on the courses they indeed ran there in the early 1990s, then at least you would know that Abbagail Winters existed then, and she can be traced as the person who then posted to other usenet groups about theatre tech matters.  This sort of thing needs someone on the ground in Australia, because it is very cumbersome to do from elsewhere in the world -- and it's my guess that the main people in this particular discussion are not in Australia.Soixante (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, if Abby Winters is pseudonym it is clearly not created for porn industry. Btw i don't think that we should reveal Abby Winters identity (nor anything what will do that) if it is somebody else than Garion Hall even if we can find it out. Its fun to try figure it out, but she/he has been out of the sight for pretty long time and its everybodys personal right to choose to tell others about his/her past. Also the real operator of the site is anyway Garion Hall (which reads in the article) and the thing with Abby Winters character is about the folklore around the site, not really about she as a person, so its not even that important thing to know if she is garion hall or not. (we can all propably agree with folklore thing?)   --Zache (talk) 01:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

What intrigues me is that here is a highly successful company which claims to have "broken the mould" by doing things differently, shooting models entirely from a woman's perspective, because it was founded by a woman. But as it gets ever more successful, was it, in fact, founded on a fiction? If so, then someone could argue that there has been misrepresentation, although, admittedly, as far as I know the company has never issued a prospectus seeking investors, and nobody is saying it has done anything illegal. But it's not the potential legal implications which are most interesting here, but nailing down the truth.Soixante (talk) 13:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that is true. Anyway i think that AW did genuenly something different; It branded the happy porn models, which seems to be pissing people of. I really doesn't know if it was good or bad thing, but least it was lot better idea than eastern europes Ass-Mouth-Ass porn at the same time.:) Though AW definetly is mainstream porn and not Alt-porn. Also if you checks the site, even it's head is Garion and there is males as workers, it seems that basic claims about the female shooting crews and all that stuff is generally true or least nobody is saying that it's false. --Zache (talk) 14:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Is Zache an employee of Garion Hall?
For the IP 220.244.245.153. I am not emplyee of Garion Hall, nor customer of Abby Winters. Except editing this article and digging things with google i am not involved with abby winters. --Zache (talk) 22:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As a side note, you don't have to reveal any personal information on wikipedia that you don't want to. Many places suggest not revealing personal details about yourself on the internet, especially on heavily-trafficked sites like wikipedia. Fredsmith2 (talk) 09:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Second half of first paragraph
To 220.245.120.120, who is probably the same person as various earlier IPs..

Your edit wasn't sourced. I don't care if it was correct. The revision you reverted was sourced. It made no claims about Abby Winters' existence. It only stated what claims the AW about page made. It referenced the about page, which did feature those claims; so it was correct. The grammar is poor though. Someone fix it...

Also, get an account (or log in). Bitwiseb (talk) 05:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * People are not required to get an account, unless they want to create a new page or upload images. Please try to be nicer on talk pages.  The goal is to try to amass a gigantic encyclopedia-wiki thing, not to fight with people. Fredsmith2 (talk) 09:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Added stuff to this page
I just added a bunch of stuff to this page, to try to clean it up, and add content to it. I'm not emotionally connected to any of my edits, and the page is still far from perfect, so modify away.

I didn't realize until I read this talk page afterwards that I'd stumbled upon a hotbed of name calling and emotion-ridden edits and reversions. I think it's funny, because there's really wasn't ever that much content on this page.

To all this I can only say, please add content rather than fight with people. There's a lot of wikipedia-worthy stuff about abbywinters.com that's still not included on this page. Fredsmith2 (talk) 09:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

POV original research by User:220.245.120.65 and User:220.245.122.245
this content is POV original research from an unreliable source. "Miraculously" is POV, and just because some former disgruntled model blogged about something doesn't make it true for inclusion in an encyclopedia. This IP(s) has been violating 3RR, and it must not be reinserted. 24.167.198.159 (talk) 17:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is orginal research, though it is pretty easy to verify if Abby Winters name is used on public documents or not. I orginally added line to calm down User:220.245.???.??? editing and it was based on Soixante's comment above which claim is verifiable (and so far true AFAIK). User from dynamic ip 220.245.???.??? is known issue and his/her edits are mostly unverifiable rants. (eg they aren't backed up by texts of disgruntled model blogger) . --Zache (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems to be like a newbie who doesn't yet know all of the rules of wikipedia yet, including that blog postings are generally frowned upon by established users. If so, be nice to this newbie please.  If the IP isn't blocked, we really should try to integrate as much as possible of what this person is trying to do, while still being consistent with wikipedia guidelines, and assume good faith.  Just because someone accuses an IP address of violating 3RR on other pages doesn't mean that their edits on this page are invalid. Fredsmith2 (talk) 09:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It's little bit more problematic than that, because IP were on his/her personal attack against AbbyWinters/Garion Hall etc. So it not that easy to please the guy/girl who want's just to put the article that Abby Winters is most exploitative yberhoax by Pornlord Garion Hall (even if it would be true). But except that, I generally agree with you. :) --Zache (talk) 10:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Time to delete?
This article was nominated for deletion in June 2005. The result was no consensus. At that time the article was a discussion of the type and quality of the photography; now it is an article about a non-notable Australian businessman, focussing on whether he pretends to be a woman. I think it's time for it to go (I prefer, for my own reasons, not to edit articles on erotica under my username, so I'll let somebody else do the nominating if they are in agreement with me). 83.70.247.120 (talk) 08:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No, its not time to delete. There is only one IP who keeps adding unreferenced information about "non-notable Australian businessman" and it can be fixed with undo. btw. If Abby Winters would be really female and running the show, then AW would be propably most succesful female operated porn site (AFAIK) and she would be notable Australian businesswoman. So there is kind of the point with the gender information. --Zache (talk) 01:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's had a good, long time to establish its notability and it hasn't done that. The references are to other no-name porn sites. One reference is on blogspot.com (Blogs are not acceptable as sources on wikipedia so that should be removed). It doesn't have any references from REAL news outlets attesting to its notability, so it's more than outstayed its welcome by years and years. Time to stop allowing it to stay just because of the aggressive following of perverts crying for it to TheBilly (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It sucks when people who want delete article don't even read the article, discussion page or the refs. From the article: AVN, Adult video news, is REAL news outlet and if you read the article there is sentence commonly reviewed as one of the best amateur porn sites. Direct links to refs:, . If you wan't more, learn to use google. --Zache (talk) 18:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The Village Voice has a lengthy article about the site here. That pretty much makes the debate moot; a lengthy profile in The Village Voice is a trump card. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

verification of identity needed?
http://www.michelle7.com/contributors/w/abbagail-winters.htm This link verifies the identity of an "Abbagail Winters" to abbywinters.com. As mentioned in an earlier thread, Abbagail Winters has been posting on usenet at least since 1997( http://groups.google.fi/groups/profile?enc_user=TtwkqhgAAAAZEx-lIIUtvcAIhjrHPzYeoyiJbVXW1IrsQYQCtqYpsA&hl=fi ) click any link.Dreammaker182 (talk) 17:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is commonly proved/agreed that usenet Abbagail Winters is "Abby Winters". Question what you seek is were usenet Abbagail Winters also Garion Hall or not (and how to prove it)?


 * Solid info is that the Abby Winters.com were started october 2000 (AW official history), from official company registers G Media (company which operates Abby Winters) was started 08.02.2001 by Garion Hall and Richard Lawrence. Also we can say pretty sure  that AW was started in 2000 by "Abby Winters" and VidDude. Third guy in very early days were second photographer Elvaar. And if you wonder, it is known also that VidDude is not Richard Lawrence. There is also some not so wikipedia reliable prove that least in end of the 2001 Abby was Garion. So there isn't that much room for the Abby Winters as real person in the scope of the company abby winters. here is more about not so wikipedia reliable abby winters history  --Zache (talk) 07:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added some things to the page about this. The picture published in Fleshbot of Mr Hall wearing an "Abby" nametag and taking a picture which is credited to "Abby" on the site seems to me to settle the matter pretty conclusively --Adell 1150. —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC).

Criticism by Liandra Dahl
Why is this notable? Just becuase some online news site happened to write about it? Seems to be just one person's random rant. Isn't there some rule about undue weight? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.167.198.226 (talk) 01:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, her criticisms happen to have been the source of a couple of articles in a major Australian paper, and is in fact, one of the few times Abby Winters has ever even been mentioned somewhere more mainstream than the porn press, so, yes, I'd say that makes it pretty notable. Also, Liandra Dahl is not just "random ranter", but an ex-AW model. WP:NPOV means including any notable criticism of a subject, so, if anything, not including it seems to give undue weight to the owners of Abby Winters, if anything. I wish people would get over the mistaken idea that a Wikipedia article somehow "belongs" to the subject of that article and should describe that person or organization with a favorable point of view rather than a neutral/balanced one. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 02:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, the main purpose should be to represent the verifiable truth in a neutral and unbiased manner.Soixante (talk) 14:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

"Liandra Let's Loose" is a dead website and there is no archive.org version that can be found. Therefore, text that rely on this dead link as a source cannot be considered properly sourced – it is no longer extant information that can be checked by third parties. In my opinion, the section should stay, however, it should only cite statements found in the Herald-Sun article, since this is the only verifiable source for these criticisms. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 15:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, this section should be kept. However, it should be noted that this statement was written in 2007, that the blog of Liandra has closed since then, and that her new blog doesn't mention anything about this story. Moreover, it should be noted that Liandra new blog has advertising for Ifeelmyself and beautifulagony, two sites she had been very critical of in "liandra let loose". So, has her opinion changed ? I think so. It should also be noted that Liandra never asked to have her video clips or photoshoots removed. Any model can do so, as long as their earnings are repayed. Some models did, not Liandra. I also think that her main beef with abbywinters and co was about the money. But oh well... . talkoo (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Controversy over the identity of Abby Winters
This:

Garion Hall is not in fact CEO, but is Managing Director. He was born Ainsley Hall, and grew up on a goat farm in a small Victorian country town. He later changed his name to avoid ambiguity about his sex. He is without question Abby Winters, and even maintained a spreadsheet outlining which staff knew the secret, which staff didn't, and which staff simply weren't sure. Garion celebrates the same birthday as Abby, December 13, 1974.

May well all be true, but shouldn't really be here (should it?) without some good references. Can anyone supply some?

--Adell 1150 (talk) 10:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I've removed this in line with Policy on unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material Adell 1150 (talk) 20:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It should not be here and it has errors (AFAIK) like that Garion Hall not being CEO which can be reffed pretty easily. --Zache (talk) 18:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Unbalanced/Undue Weight
While criticisms, especially newsworthy ones, need to be covered, looking at the amount of space given to different parts of the article, it looks to me like undue weight is given to criticisms and controversies surrounding AW. It seems to me that for balance, the article needs to be expanded to give more of an overall description of the site and its place in the porn industry, as well as the positive published views of the site and its content, of which quite a bit has been said. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 00:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

One of the interesting things about Abby Winters is its amazing capacity to generate strong passions, both pro- and anti-. A glance at the postings about the recent bust will show you that. I think the article should reflect this, and I don't think it's especially unbalanced as it stands Adell 1150 (talk) 15:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC).

"One of the best amateur porn sites"
The statement "It is commonly rated as one of the best amateur porn sites" is POV and only backed by references to a couple of the many internet porn portals, which aren't exactly the most reliable sources. This statement needs to go unless it can be better supported by several strong references. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 06:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just remove it, I would say. Neither source is reliable as they are both commercial sites. I'm sure it's very highly rated, but we need something more substantial. Law type!  snype? 06:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

News story from last year
An AW model got some small noteriaty in the Australian media last year:. This is probably worth a mention somewhere in the article. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 06:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * True, but no mention of AW in the article. Law type!  snype? 06:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Raid
A line has been added to this section, saying: On 16 June 2009 G Media offices in Melbourne were raided by Victoria Police  'as part of a wider operation named "Operation Refuge", which is a police investigation into the filming of underage models, as well as producing pornography in Victoria, which is illegal'.

The reference given is this, from the Herald Sun (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,27574,25641940-2862,00.htm)

Detectives raided five premises as part of Operation Refuge, seizing computers containing footage of women allegedly performing explicit sex acts, which are illegal to produce in Victoria. They are also investigating allegations that some of the models on the porn company's website are under age.

But this says nothing about what Operation Refuge actually is, and Googling it turns up nothing. And the quote 'as well as producing pornography in Victoria, which is illegal' is almost certainly wrong. Some types of pornography, perhaps.

As such I propose deleting the text in italics, again. Adell 1150 (talk) 16:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this discussion to my attention. First, Google results have no bearing on inclusion. Second, please read WP:V. The threshold on Wikipedia is 'verifiability not truth.' Although you argue that something is 'wrong' - it doesn't matter because we go by what the source asserts, not Original Research. The first two paragraphs of the reference:


 * Detectives raided five premises as part of Operation Refuge, seizing computers containing footage of women allegedly performing explicit sex acts, which are illegal to produce in Victoria. They are also investigating allegations that some of the models on the porn company's website are under age. This makes it clear that Operation Refuge is concerned with the production of illegal pornography - whether it be age or location of production. Law type!  snype? 16:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You make two claims in the sentence you included:

"Operation Refuge" is a police investigation into the filming of underage models [...] producing pornography in Victoria is illegal

The article you cite for these says neither of those things. It says nothing at all about what 'Operation Refuge' is. Indeed I can't find anything anywhere about what 'Operation Refuge' is (can you?). For all we know, it might be an investigation into trafficking, or tax dodging, or (my personal bet) a figment of the journalist's imagination. Nor does the quote above say that producing pornography in Victoria is illegal. Adell 1150 (talk) 16:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but there is a point when common sense is king. If the police break into your house during Operation Weed, and seize your weed, then I'm pretty sure the raid was about weed. From the article: "It is illegal to profit from making porn films in Victoria." "...explicit sex acts, which are illegal to produce in Victoria." "...films were too explicit to be legally made in Victoria." So where is the confusion about legality? It is clearly mentioned at least three times. Law type!  snype? 18:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked the section to make it a bit more accurate. Please have a read. Law type!  snype? 19:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's great. I've tweaked it slightly. Adell 1150 (talk) 13:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I've reintstated a sentence about blog entries about the raid, on the grounds that:

1) some of the information in these is extremely interesting (to anyone interested in this at all). There are entries, not available elsewhere, from current and former models and employees, both pro- and anti- the company.

2) no conclusions have been drawn from this material, so the complaint about synthesis is invalid; it merely notes that these discussions exist. Adell 1150 (talk) 07:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, no conclusions have been drawn from this material. I merely note that it exists and that it is being actively contributed to by many people. The question of whether it is authoritative, or biased, is not relevant. It's common to include links to discussion boards on this basis; there are even links on Wikipedia to pro-Nazi discussion boards. That doesn't require (I hope) that that Stormfront be authoritative or unbiased. It's there because it's worth recording that's where Nazis talk to one another. So, please leave these links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adell 1150 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

You know, I'm one of the participants in the discussion over at the Somebody Think of the Children blog, and I don't consider that discussion to rise anywhere near to the level of Wikipedia notability. The raid is notable, the statement posted by Garion Hall is notable, the third-party discussion – not notable. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 06:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

@Adell: 'Existence' is not a threshold for inclusion. Everything that exists is discussed on some blog or forum somewhere. I have no idea why you use Stormfront as an example - it's a poor comparison, but I suppose someone had to invoke Godwin's Law. Law type! snype? 06:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Having a look at this from Mediation Cabal. Adell, Law may have a point here: most articles on WP probably generate some Internet discussion, why do we need to mention them? That said, I don't think it's a reliability issue: as you say, article doesn't draw conclusions from sources. But do we need to note they exist at all? Not saying we don't, but could you provide reasons why? James Robson (talk) 17:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

modelling fees?
Justwanderinby (talk) 23:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)The figures given - $800 to $1400 - sound a bit high. The site has a few 'stars' who may get that, but not the 'newbies.' Maybe others have info on this.


 * All girls would be paid the same, 'stars' and 'newbies' alike. It's really not that much if you consider that it has 30,00 members in Jan 08 (so probably closer to 40,000 or 50,000 now) who are paying about USD$20 a month so 30,000 x $20 is USD$600,000 a month (or a cool USD$7.2 million a year) the current exchange rate is roughly USD$1 : AUD$1.14912 so that's ~AUD$700,000 a month (or ~AUD$8.5 million a year), so if you were to pay even $1,400 a day for two models ($2,800 together) plus about the same for crew/equipment you are looking at about $6,000 a day shoot costs, plus maybe the same for admin/web hosting costs, so lets say an even AUD$13,000 a weekday and $7,000 on weekends (web/admin only) means it's only $80,000 a week operating costs (or $4.16 million a year operating costs). Even their record breaking Step-aerobics shoot with 19 girls wouldn't be all that expensive relatively speaking (assuming they were paid $800, it would be $800 x 19 = $15,200, plus crew/equipment, so a $20,000+ shoot. Even if it was $1,400 a girl it would only be $1,400 x 19 = $26,600, plus crew/equipment, so a $35,000+ shoot.). 203.59.45.96 (talk) 09:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

BLP problems?
I've read the article and I don't see anything that might be construed as defamatory. What exactly is the concern? Tim Vickers (talk) 00:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This version was the one being complained about. I have removed several bits of speculation and poorly sourced biographical info. Kevin (talk) 00:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I see the section was removed earlier. I agree with the removal, I don't think the sources are good enough (blogs and forums) to speculate over somebody's real-life identity. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Earlier I added the article tag & BLP thread on the content. I too agree with the section removal plus the other improvements. I've now removed the tag, as I no longer see anything potentially defamatory. Thanks. –Whitehorse1 01:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Heterosexual content
A quick read of this page makes it appear that AW is totally solo or lesbian, yet there has been at least one heterosexual shoot, (Jamie and Luke), with the implication that there may be more (when it was released). Is this worth including. I do not have any reliable sources apart from the downloads on my hard disc. 82.27.239.142 (talk) 01:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If you like to add it then you can ref it to their FAQ: "We did a few girl-boy shoots to try it out in 2003-04. We had a policy of only shooting models with their real-life boyfriends, in an effort to make the whole thing less sleazy, and it worked ok. In our opinion, the quality of the shoots varies from just ok to quite good. But, we just did not like shooting guys with girls, so we don't do it much any more. And anyway, it's not really what we're about. We may shoot more girl-boy stuff in the future, perhaps one a year at the most. We know it's popular (our site is already quite popular), we know we could make a mint if we did more (we're not about making more money), we know (you think) we're crazy. Please don't ask us to shoot more of them. Thanks. . --Zache (talk) 17:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

BLP: remove of identity controversy
Kevin removed the Identity controversy with comment "no evidence that this is an actual controversy, not reliably sourced" as response to the BLP. I disagree with that. It was sourced in example to the Fleshbot (ref1, ref2), which is notable source and and big enough to proof reliably that controversy actually exists. Identity is also important part of Abby Winters history because one reason why site were unique was because site claimed that it was founded and operated by woman; Abby Winters, ref and they photo shooted only with all female crews.

Officially Abby was running the site until 2008 when company rewrote sites history in Adult Entertainment Expo, Jan 9-12, 2008 and said that Garion Hall has runned the show from 2002. AW press release for AEE also acknowledge the controversy with defining the Abby Winters as persona with the words "Some people would say that Abby Winters, creator of award-winning Australian erotic website abbywinters.com, is a puzzle wrapped in an enigma – shrouded in a mystery!".

Another reason why there should be something about Abby Winters as persona in the article is that in sites history she is named as founder of the site and it's name is from her. So i think that chapter should be restored. --Zache (talk) 17:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * My edits were the result of a discussion at Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. Note that where we are writing about living people, sites such as fleshbot.com are most definitely not reliable enough to use as a source. Kevin (talk) 22:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Your discussion took about 2 hours max, contained just notification for the BLP problem and your response that you just cleaned whole chapter out. So it wasn't very long discussion. But it isn't really the point. I was noting you because i was planning to restore least some of the removed text.


 * Anyway Fleshbot is easily reliable enough. It is specialized to porn, it is published by Gawker which is pretty much big as it can get in scope of blogs and  it directly says that there is a doubt about the identity: "Aussie all natural porn site Abby Winters has long been plagued by the rumor that founder Abby Winters is (gasp!) not a real person—and a reader email we just received seems to confirm this suspicion.".


 * maybe something like this is ok?

"Abby Winters is an Internet persona whose first writings to usenet are from 1996.[14] There has been question about if Abby Winters really is a real person and when interview published in AdultDVDTalk asked it Abby aswered that she is a real person, but is now removed from the day-to-day operations of the business of abbywinters.com. She told also that they made the decision to keep the Abby persona alive, as the hostess of the site. (ref interview) As role of hostess  she was credited to be running the site until they released more information about the company in their AEE Awards press release at 2008. (ref AEE press release).

The site's official folklore says that it was founded for fun, launched October 14, 2000, by a photographer, Abby Winters (born December 13, 1974), and her web-designer friend, who observed how poor existing sites were and thought that she could do better.[16]Around May 2002 Abby left to "pursue other interests" and not "not even stopping into HQ to visit since the team moved into their coveted building in Fitzroy" At the time Garion Hall became owner and operator of the website. (ref AEE press release)

In the early years of the site, Abby was credited as the main photographer".


 * --Zache (talk) 00:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what sources you intend using for this, but of the ones listed above the 2 fleshbot links are totally unsuitable for posting material about living people. One cites a forum post, and the other has a pic of "some dude". As for your second paragraph, it seems a lot like original research. Kevin (talk) 01:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Edited little bit. Removed reference to Fleshbot, and reffed to AdultVideoTalk interview and AW's AEE press release. --Zache (talk) 10:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

For clarity, I opened the BLP thread. I removed the article tag after about 2hrs, once the core problems were cleaned up. I left the thread open to allow further discussion, only closing it about 24hrs later. Additionally, the thread further up this page shows two experienced editors agreeing the speculative/poorly-sourced content needed removal.

The first sentence isn't really relevant, nor suitably sourced for a living person. It appears to be 'scene-setting' for what you're saying should be included using the rest of the paragraphs. I don't see that someone having a less active role compares to being a mere persona. As the various policies note, sources must unambiguously directly support support the information as it is presented; drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source. The interview doesn't support any claim their identity/existence is contested. The interview question is a mere passing confirmation as to the eponymous founder of the company; it makes no suggestion it's asked for any reason beside how unrelated orgs named for their own eponymous owners might be. I agree with Kevin the 2nd paragraph content comprises unsourced or original research. –Whitehorse1 22:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect information about GMbill sites
This statement is incorrect as of 2008: "GMBill also provides payment services to Australia-based site Beautiful Agony. Prior to 2008, GMBill also provided payment services to the Girls Out West site."

It should be something like "GMBill also provides payment services to Australia-based site GirlsOutWest.com. Prior to 2008, GMBill also provided payment services to the BeautifulAgony.com, IShotMyself.com, and IFeelmyself.com."

The Feck sites annouced they were stopping billing vias GMBill in 2008, and there proff is on their billing pages. Girlsoutwest never stopped using GMBill, and their billing page uses GMBill as their primary method. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.97.242 (talk) 21:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Girlsoutwest have now announced they plan to discontinue using GMBill. See http://affiliates.girlsoutwest.com/index.php where no mention of GmBill is now made. 125.237.124.246 (talk) 10:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Age of Models
The article claims that the age of the models is between 18 and 25 based on an article in the Village Voice, but several other sources claim otherwise (http://www.18reviews.com/abbywinters.html says that they are between 18 and 23), and many of the models are over 26 (their age is specified on their website page). In addition there is no guarantee that the age of the youngest models is 18 (of the alleged reasons behind the police raid was that at least one of the models was younger than 18 at the time of the shooting). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.0.185 (talk) 14:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Changed the wording to "typically between" Sanguis Sanies (talk) 06:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Move to Amsterdam
CEO Garion Hall of Abbywinters.com offically announced that the site's studios would be moving to Amsterdam, Netherlands on 1, June 2010. Here is a link to his official announcement on the site's online forum: http://forums.abbywinters.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=12642

I will add a small section to the article addressing this.Incubus421 (talk) 23:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

As Exploitational As Most Porn Sites
I grieves me to see that porn sites such as AW (and entires about other exploitative porn sites) as worthy of an entry in WP, with all due respect for WP as a free webcyclopedia whose aim is cover any topic in the world non-objectively. AW's claims to be a more 'respectful' porn site seem absolutely ridiculous in the face the language they use to describe their 'models', which is eerily similar to descriptions of GMO free organic meat - i.e. fresh, natural untraumatized, etc. This my main accusation of exploitation. Their main strength seems to come from their choice of models - 'normal' looking girls. This trait attracts the (primarily) male audience of porn who are not taken in any more by the promises of other porn sites to provide them with 'virgins' and 'inexperienced' girls, since there they are apparently treated to more innocent and 'unsullied' looking girls. To be honest AW sounds just like any other meat-trade site in this respect - it simply providing what that particular brand of consumer is looking for to whet their appetite.

To summerise, it seems to be that AW is even more insidious and unscroupelous than most porn sites by virtue of it's incredibly pretensions claims. One is initially taken in by the idea of some kind of new and respectful pornography, whereas in reality they turn out to be even worse than the disrespectful, misogonist and humiliating porn on other sites. It's either an extremely misguided project or else a very clevel con, which people will eventually catch on to. Either way, it pains me to see that it 'advertised' (as one person here put it) on wikipedia. -- Comment left 86.135.206.255 at 16:41, 14 June 2007 (sign added by --Zache 10:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC))


 * How AW:s porn even worse than disrespectful, misogonist and humiliating porn? Because porn is bad and it is porn? I can see your GMO point and brand thing and that it's paying target audience is male (though it's free ad blogs are with 50/50 gender ratio, but not really your argument for that the AW is bad or that it damages/exploits it's models --Zache 10:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I answer to myself, Here is personal blogentry from Abby Winters, Beautiful Agony, i Shot myself model. Intresting stuff and should be in article --Zache 06:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There is definitely a two-faced aspect to the site. The material itself is of very high technical quality, the indexing and cross-referencing of the articles is of near-obsessive minuteness (not that that's a bad thing), and the youngish women have the air of naturalness about them. But there is also an exploitive quality, for example the user-created cross reference lists that focus on any bizarre topic the various authors can think of. Also, the women occasionally referencing drug-taking (such as Ecstasy) in a very casual way is something I find disturbing. She&#39;s So Fine 15:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the critique of Abby Winters. First, any capitalist enterprise subsists due to accumulate unearned increment, i.e. difference between the turnover of the enterprise and taxes plus costs (including wages); the process of accumulating the unearned increment is called exploitation. So, exploitation is the essence of capitalism (this is not a critique of capitalism, but a fact of economics, a sheer analytical-empirical understanding of facts). A capitalistic enterprise which does not exploit people becomes sooner or later bankrupt, since profit is zero or negative, due to lack of unearned increment. So does Ford, so does Opel, so do all naturally grown produtcs sellers and even all fair-trade companies (since they are not charities). Second, the site is meant for people who love to look at women, i.e. women lovers. It is thus not the place to be for misogynists, i.e. for people who do not like women, since by accessing the site they will be confronted with the subject of their hate. Third, the actors at the site are not "girls" (i.e. children), but they are mature persons, i.e. women. Fourth, the leak of Abby Winters videos is (I guess) very undesirable for Abby Winters itself, since it is in the business of selling such videos to their audience and if those videos are feely available, they will lose a part of their profits. Fifth, any actress or actor who decides to act in pornography is aware that such videos could be sold across the globe, and become eventually shared on the Usenet and P2P networks, and that sometimes it may happen that they are recognized as the actors who played in such videos. If they would not agree to this, they would wear masks when acting in porn movies, in order to hide their identity. They are mature persons who decide for themselves in full awareness, and neither the church nor the state should decide in their place, since those women should decide their own fate. Sixth, for a porn site, any publicity is good publicity, i.e. critique actually boosts the audience of the site. This way, critics help this site to become even more popular than it was, since the people who are likely to buy such videos won't be deterred in doing so by self-righteous arguments, and those who do not agree with this business cannot stop it from doing business (capitalism is about doing business not about imposing someone's morality upon others). People to whom this site was previously unknown become aware of its existence by reading such critique, and from among such readers new clients of the site will be recruited. If I were a manager of Abby Winters, I would secretly pay critics in order to criticize my business, or instruct an Abby Winters actress to pretend that she totally abhors what she previously did, and seek publicity about that. Seventh, I do not see the relevance of your critique in an encyclopedic entry about an enterprise. An encyclopedia should present facts, not oppinions, i.e. use a neutral point of view. Such point of view is naturally not opposed to morality, just as it is not opposed to pornography. An encyclopedia is not an arena to fight over ideologies and quarrel about their own views over what it should be done, but it is a place where people learn what is. Eight, Wikipedia should also present the print-published critique about real businesses, and this has been done in the article, thing of which, as argued previosuly, one cannot be sure that it is something else than covert propaganda for such type of business. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I assume the parent poster has never actually been a member on the site and talked with the models themselves on their forum? They generally appreciate your comments and would probably welcome a thread on your opinions. To gain further insight in whether this site misrepresent them or not, don't start a topic on Wikipedia, start it over there. The models there seem intelligent enough to take the discussion. &mdash; Northgrove 20:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Northgrove, you idiot, that forum's extremely tightly controlled (as one would expect), any questions regarding exploitation, whether the models are comfortable with what they've done, the control the models have over where the photos end up (which apparently they don't have), will be heavily moderated and or censored - there's no way you're going to get any information from the models except by interviewing them directly. And even that would be difficult judging by how they were controlled and prevented from talking to journalists at the AVN awards. 89.242.0.185 (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC) 89.242.0.185 (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

this is not a balanced encyclopedic offering
Some basic information is arguably encyclopedic, but with much of the article presenting a loyal customer's take on the site, what about other experts - people a with a background studying either sexuality, the porn industry and how it operates, the social and cultural impact of porn, and who have academic credentials?

If people with an other, more academic interest in pornography aren't contributing to this article, it suggests the topic does not deserve such coverage. I would be dissapointed in Wikipedia if this is taken as a licence for loyal porn customers to own how Abby winters.com is represented. 33gsd (talk) 14:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)33gsd


 * Have these experts commented specifically on abbywinters.com? Are the academics commenting specifically on abbywinters.com? If not then those views don't belong on the abbywinters.com page. Visit the wiki page of any book, film or piece of music and you'll see references relating to that specific book, film or piece of music, not the industry as a whole; you visit the Inception wiki page to learn about Inception, not how a camera lens works. The same with the abbywinters.com page; it must relate specifically to abbywinters.com to be included, not pornography in general. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I was pleased to find a response which engaged with what I said. I should mention, I am new here. Rereading my original comment I realise I should state, I have not read a lot on various perspectives on the porn industry (to wit namely atricles and some extended reports in the more upmarket mainstream print media and mentions in social sciences and cultural studies books), and next to nothing on Abby Winters.com specifically. I did not intend to mislead (I observe when someone posts on wikipedia 'someone should change this' it frequently implies 'I myself am not qualified to change this'). I accept that my arguments may be more about pornography in general than abbywinters.com. Nevertheless my objections to this page in its current form remain. I can state my objection more clearly: this page is too long to be lacking a mainstream perspective. What do I mean by 'mainstream', and why do say this? Let me make the comparison with the 'Inception' page. I think it is fine for a film page to be written by informed film lovers. Their interest, their perspective, matches that of the wider public and mainstream print and radio media. Admittedly, when a Hollywood blockbuster is released, strands of the mainstream print and radio media also question the politics of the film, for example what messages it contains about gender and race, or what it suggests about the mood of the cinema going public eg making disater films post 9/11 was not the same as making them before. It would be nice to find such specialist comments in a wikipedia entry, but I recognise they only represent a strand or comment, and are well represented elsewhere, so an article can often be complete without them. This is not so for porn. Porn creates controversy. Mainstream discussion of porn in the media more often than not involves psychologists, doctors, cultural commenators, and excluding them means it is not a mainstream perspective. This is arguably not the best place for such a debate, but in acknoweldgement of this: this page needs to be much shorter. The talk page contains contributions from people who find the article and the company strongly distasteful and much mainstream opinion would generally agree. I'm new here, I was shocked to learn that whether or not this page would be deleted depended on only 11 people. I would like to know how others respond to drastically shortening the artice. I wouldn't necessarily ask for any more of an anti-porn perspective to be represented. And trying to forestall an objection that porn is mainstream because of the number of consumers - however much money each makes, however many people buy their products, a pop star or a major 'serious' fiction author receive more discussion in the mainstream, established print and radio media than a computer game designer and it is not for wikipedia to change that. Minority sites exist for in-depth discussion of porn amongst customers and potential customers. People visiting this site should not be considered potential customers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 33gsd (talk • contribs) 22:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The two controversies regarding abbywinters.com are addressed in the article; The citicism from a former model and the police raid/arrest/move to amsterdam. Their appearances at various trade shows has also been included and that's more or less all the reliable sources we can use. I (and I assume others) do keep a look out for references to abbywinters.com in various media but very little appears, a web search for "Abby Winters" returns the main site and then various marketing blogs. Just because a company has been around for a while doesn't mean that reliable sources will talk about it; there are thousands of companies (pornographic and not) that are older than abbywinters.com and don't have wikipedia pages, as well as companies that have much smaller pages. An articles length or content should not be confused with the subjects popularity; only how many reliable sources can be found that give new information. Because the reviews are overwhelmingly positive with wikipedias neutral point of view the page must reflect this, if reviews where largely negative then the page would reflect that. A "positive" page should not be taken as wikipedia "liking" or endorsing the subject in the same way that a "negatvie" page should be taken as wikipedias criticism of the subject, wikipedia simply repeats what others before it have said. Wikipedia has no interest in treating visitors as customers for the pages subject (in fact that goes against virtually all of Wikipedias policies); we simply collate and repeat the opinions of others. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 07:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The fictional Abby Winters is still prominent on the website
The fictional Abby Winters story is still prominent on the website. See http://www.abbywinters.com/about

There is no mention on the website of the company's move to Amsterdam. Just the opposite, in several places it implies that the company is still in Fitzroy, Melbourne: "Where possible, we select local suppliers over mega-corps, to keep our vibrant community of Fitzroy alive.", http://www.abbywinters.com/about > We Care.

In light of the above, I have reworded the paragraph that stated otherwise than the above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guyburns (talk • contribs) 02:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Abbywinters.com. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081029000024/http://press.abbywinters.com/releases/abbywinters_pr20071218wicked.doc to http://press.abbywinters.com/releases/abbywinters_pr20071218wicked.doc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 08:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)