Talk:Brittni De La Mora

Born again
Two IP editors have adedd important info which, if true, needs to be included in this article. I've reverted it because it's not from a reliable source. Everyone, please keep your eyes out for news of this from a reliable source and add it if it turns up. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 22:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What's not reliable about it? On the site in question there is a video of the person concerned giving an interview in which she states that she (a) no longer performs in pornographic films and (b) now identifies as a Christian. What's more reliable than hearing it direct from the source in her own words?Apodeictic (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand your frustration. The phrase "reliable source" on Wikipedia has a very specific meaning. Please follow this link, WP:RS, to get an idea about what we're talking about.  After that, please come back here and ask more questions, or perhaps try here WP:TEAHOUSE.
 * In the meantime, please rest assured that, if we can find this info covered in a "reliable source" as that term is defined on wikipedia, we'll add it to the article. If properly sourced, the fact would be undoubtedly notable. David in DC (talk) 21:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

NPOV
Kindly cite the exact part of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS which prevents this material from being cited and also your assurance of NPOV given your extensive contributions to biographies of the adult industry. PatrickDunfordNZ (talk) 11:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Assuming you are referring to this, you have it backwards. The info has been added three times by IPs and reverted twice by editors stating it is not a reliable source.
 * If you believe both editors have COIs, please raise the issue on their talk pages.
 * If you believe xxxchurch.com is a reliable source, you will need to prove that here. The other two editors don't see it and neither do I. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 12:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Summer on how WP:RS works here. If you want to spend your time trying to prove XXXchurch is a WP:RS, be my guest, but I think your time would be better spent trying to find a reference to this in a more obviously reliable source.  I've been looking for days and still can't find one.
 * As to WP:COI, you are really barking up the wrong tree, at least as to me. I have no connection to the adult entertainment industry, except for purchasing the industry's output on occasional hotel stays. The bulk of my editing in wikipedia is of biographies of living people.  I became a regular on porn pages because I feel strongly that BLP stands, in the vast majority of cases, against disclosing the purposely obscured birth names of porn actors who appear under stage names.  I've watched the video that I've deleted references to a couple of times now.  It seems compelling.  If I could find a reliable source for the information in it, I'd try to include that information.  But I'd also hope to find a source that permitted me to include the information without publicizing any purported birth name, unless I were damn sure it would do the former actress no WP:HARM. In the first throes of a religious epiphany, people sometimes disclose more than they need to. I'm not at all sure XXXchurch has tended to this person's giving witness to the glory of the Deity she now embraces in the most responsible way.  I'd prefer not to abet the error.David in DC (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The conversation on the BLP Noticeboard has turned up a sufficiently strong source. Pressley's recent appearance on The View.  If someone sources the conversion (and even the name) to that reference, I'd have no policy-based rationale to oppose it. Indeed, as FreeRangeFrog points out, her conversion and acts of witness may, over time, become more notable than her porn career. David in DC (talk) 21:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The View itself isn't really a reliable source. A newspaper or magazine covering that episode may be. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * They might be reliable, if they showed any evidence of critical evaluation of the content or checking of facts with independent sources, but all I'm seeing is a mining of the video for cheap titillation. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Ethics of using facial likeness of an individual who obviously does not consent to image being used
There are issues about using so-called "Jenna Presley", aka Brittni De La Mora's image for sexual purposes, when she obviously no longer consents to the use of her facial likeness for pornographic imagery. There is also bias in this article about her sexual career, when in fact she has since been largely involved with the XXX Church organization, including for instance, this video. 132.234.228.226 (talk) 13:57, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Consent is irrelevant for a public domain photo. David in DC (talk) 18:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Brittni’s appearance on the Dr. Phil show
There has been some going back and forth about Brittni’s appearance on the Dr. Phil show, and what content we can use from that show in this encyclopedia. Here is the link, as a reference:

This link makes the following claims:


 * Brittni was on the Dr. Phil show. Since this is WP:PRIMARY, it may not belong here on the Wikipedia, so I will concede we should look for a WP:SECONDARY source before making the claim in the article that she was on the Dr. Phil talk show (in my first edit I added that information, but will not add it again unless her appearance gets more coverage).
 * Brittni is now a wife and mother. As per the linked article, she is “married with children”.

The question is whether we can use this link to point out Brittni is a wife and mother. Dr. Phil is generally considered a reliable source as per discussions over at WP:RS/N, for example Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_36 and Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_128 where other editors have stated we can use Dr. Phil’s website to make claims which, in this case, don’t have WP:BLP implications and which simply fill out the details of Brittni’s current life.

It’s a detail which is useful to have in a 300-word mini biography, it’s backed up by a reasonably reliable secondary source, so I see no controversy in including it. For the record, I have no relationship with Brittni except that I have bought her book and follow her, her husband, and her ministry on Instagram. Samboy (talk) 04:40, 21 December 2022 (UTC)


 * There has been a discussion opened up at WP:BLP/N about including this content. Again, I have withdrawn and am not making a WP:ABOUTSELF claim (namely, that the Dr. Phil show’s website can be used to point out Brittni was on the Dr. Phil show) any more. But I think we can use Dr. Phil to point out she now has a husband and children.  Samboy (talk) 05:08, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Name change
There have been a couple attempts to change the name of the page recently so I thought I'd open up a discussion. It looks like Jenna/Brittni has a pretty notable career as a minster and author under the name "Brittni De La Mora" and I think it makes sense to have the page reflect her current professional name. Also, @Morbidthoughts mentioned in his edit summary that the tenets of WP:DEADNAME may apply here, and perhaps the spirit does if not the exact letter. Based on those reasons I would support the name change. Relinus (talk) 06:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 20 March 2024

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) asilvering (talk) 00:38, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Jenna Presley → Brittni De La Mora – Per WP:NAMECHANGES, this article should be moved to the title that most accurately reflects present-day sourcing and the current professional name/identity this WP:BLP individual uses. It is disrespectful and inaccurate to use the name "Jenna Presley" to refer to her life before and after her career in the adult film industry. Now that we are twelve years removed from her leaving the industry, it is clear that this name change is necessary based on her life since then. Such a change would still be in line with the criteria at WP:TITLE, namely WP:CRITERIA and WP:COMMONNAME. I have also seen MOS:DEADNAME cited; I recognize the specific applications of this guideline, but I do believe that its spirit applies to this situation. I would have boldly performed this move myself, but I was unable to perform the technical component due to "Brittni De La Mora" already existing as a redirect. TNstingray (talk) 12:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support. I started a discussion about four months ago and received no opposition to a change. Seems like an obvious move to me. Relinus (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:NAMECHANGES. See also Céline Tran. 162 etc. (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support -- she's no Cat Stevens. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If she hadn't been a pornstar with the name Jenna Presley then she wouldn't have an article in the first place. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how that supersedes the guidelines cited above. We don't make decisions on this encyclopedia based on speculation of alternative history. The fact is that the status quo for this individual has changed, and such a change would be consistent with other ex-performers who have left the industry and established notability elsewhere, such as the example of Céline Tran. TNstingray (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * But she hasn't. She is notable solely for being a porn performer. Her subsequent career would not be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Over half of the current article and attached sources discuss her exit from the industry and subsequent career. Clearly that is the more notable piece of her life. Per the cited guidelines along with WP:CONSISTENT which I implied in my last comment, the move should be a crystal clear decision. I can't imagine the backlash if Wikipedia had stubbornly refused to change the article names of individuals ranging from Elton John to Elliot Page simply because someone insisted they were only notable under their previous identity. TNstingray (talk) 14:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Clearly totally different cases. Elton John is notable only under that name, Elliot Page under both names. Jenna Presley is notable only as a porn performer and subsequently commenting on her time as a porn performer. She has no other reason for notability. If she had not been a porn performer she would not be notable at all. To make an analogy to someone you have mentioned: if Elton John retired from the music industry and went back to calling himself Reginald Dwight we would certainly not rename his article to Reginald Dwight, even if he claimed that was the only name he wanted to be called in future, because his overwhelming notability is as Elton John. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If Elton John went back to calling himself Reginald Dwight and established notability under that name in the next 10-20 years, then there would at least have to be conversations about renaming the article. I know they are totally different cases; that's why I said "ranging from...". The fact is that Brittni De La Mora is notable for her former career under the name Jenna Presley, and for leaving that career behind twelve years ago to be become a Christian influencer and critic of the industry. That's what the article presents. The title should reflect and balance the content of the article, the up-to-date reliable sourcing, and the cited Wikipedia policies, all of which happen to match the wishes of De La Mora; hence, the requested move. TNstingray (talk) 17:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment. I did a google search under her names, and found sources which either did not mention porn (such as this one) or did not mention her former name (such as this, this, this, this, this, and this, which literally refer to her as things like "Ex-porn star Brittni De La Mora") while others (such as this, this, this, and this) do briefly mention her former name, but only to add more background after first referring to her as Brittni De La Mora. It's worth noting that during my search for "Brittni De La Mora" I also saw a number of porn sites come up, which means that even porn sites are now acknowledging and using her new name.
 * It's also worth noting that while it's true most sources mention her past as a porn actress, it's mostly only to give context and validity for her speaking about issues around sexuality and against pornography, and not to cover her as a porn actress. So I'm not sure I agree the speculation that if she had started as a preacher and done the exact same activism she did now against porn that she wouldn't still meet WP:GNG. I'm sure there would have been at least a number of christian sources happy to have her saying the same things she's saying now who would cover her, she just wouldn't have had the extra context of being in the industry to give her arguments validity. Take for example someone like Gary Wilson who spoke out against porn and managed to become notable despite not being a pornstar first. I find it entirely possible that if she had gone straight from college to being an anti-porn activist instead of spending years in porn first she could have reached GNG by now. That said, I don't think we should speculate on GNG in alternate universes, she easily meets it specifically as Brittni De La Mora now in this universe, and as of right now that is by far the name she is most often referred to in recent news sources, etc, so that's what the article should reflect per wikipedia guidelines mentioned in above comments. Relinus (talk) 18:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Name within the article
After the discussion above concludes (and assuming for the moment that my proposal goes through), I would also like to go ahead and obtain consensus regarding the names used within the article itself. I must admit that I am relatively unfamiliar with WP precedent regarding naming conventions within the actual article: would we use "Ruiz..." for early life, "Presley..." for adult film career, and "De La Mora..." for everything else? Or would we exclusively use "De La Mora", mirroring the current format exclusively using "Presley"? If anyone has a relevant MOS or other WP policy link, that would be helpful.

Thanks to @Relinus for properly formatting the lede. TNstingray (talk) 17:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)