Talk:Casey Calvert

Over use of citations
This article has a serious problem with WP:CITEKILL. For instances, there's no reason to have 3 citations just to say she identifies as a feminist. It's not helpful to anyone either. I think "It is possible that an editor who is trying to promote an article to GA-class (good article status) might add citations to basic facts such as "...the sky is blue..."[6]. While this might be a good thing in their eyes, the fact that the sky is blue does not usually require a citation" applies here. As well as most of it being WP:REFBOMBing for the purpose of the AfD. " The deceptive goal here is to boost the number of footnotes present in the article as high as possible, in the hope that it will fool other editors into accepting the topic's notability without properly vetting the degree to which any given source is or isn't actually substantive, reliable, and about the subject. Ultimately, it just makes the article harder to read and edit. A lot of the cruft sources should be removed and only ones that are actually substantive and reliable should be kept. Both criteria being as important. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'm not sure how much article would be left if the refs we held to BLP and NOT. All the refs, their repetition, and the content expansion looks like zone flooding. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I'd have to agree with the in-depth analysis by that it's not a good idea to hold female actresses in this industry to a different double standard on Wikipedia. Right cite (talk) 19:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a really bizarre take. Neither one of us said it had anything to do with her being a female. Nor do the guidelines about the proper use of references have anything to do with gender. Generally, if someone is going to drop the sexism card there should at least be a smidgen of truth behind it. Otherwise, it just looks ridiculous. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:21, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Not what I was saying. Just agree with the analysis by and  about what has been going on here. Right cite (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see there comments anywhere on this talk page. Let alone this particular section. So, whatever they said isn't relevant to this particular thing. General statements made in other, random forums rarely are though. Otherwise, what specifically did they say about this specific article being overcited? --Adamant1 (talk) 19:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems like WP:BATTLE, and a disruption of the purpose of this specific discussion away from content. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 01:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope. Was not the intent. Apologies it was perceived inappropriately by you two. Right cite (talk) 10:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That's just more of the same behavior. Please stop. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel that way, was not intended as such. Hope we can communicate going forwards in more good faith and with less terse language and command form grammar. Right cite (talk) 16:25, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That communication needs to based upon a good understanding of and adherence to policy. Sanctions are in effect here. If you are unable to learn and follow policy, you're at risk of a block or ban. That's why you're being told to stop your behavior. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I agree with you on the policy. Thanks for explaining in in a good faith manner, here. I appreciate it! Right cite (talk) 16:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Published writing
Books Articles -

Not sure why this was removed from the article. It is encyclopedic to list writings published by the author. Right cite (talk) 18:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * One could argue that. Although, if the works of an author are listed it's usually confined just to notable ones and doesn't include every single magazine or news article they have written. Especially if the person isn't known for being an author and the article isn't specifically about that. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The publications are indeed notable. Right cite (talk) 19:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have anything to do with "the publications." What makes the specific articles she wrote notable? Is there secondary coverage of them somewhere? Is there evidence they had an impact on anything anywhere? --Adamant1 (talk) 19:32, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * They were removed because this is an encyclopedia article. It's not a resume, a soapbox, or an indiscriminate list of everything remotely to do with Calvert. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 01:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It is indeed encyclopedic to list them, per WP:BIBLIOGRAPHIES. Right cite (talk) 14:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Howso? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has a page about WP:BIBLIOGRAPHIES to guide how to list bibliographies in articles about individuals who have published writings. Right cite (talk) 16:25, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You are ignoring or don't understand the question. Do you understand what WP:MOS is? WP:NOT, WP:BLP, WP:POV? Read the nutshells and introductions at least. You'll see that MOS is not a guideline that applies for determining what is included in article, but rather how information is presented after other policies (NOT, BLP, POV) are met. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. Right cite (talk) 16:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually this is established in Wikipedia articles - specifically in articles like Emily Temple-Wood, why are the standards any different? It's not "otherstuffexists" because that article has had multiple admins go over it and watch it, so why is the standard any different? GuzzyG (talk) 13:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's definitely a WP:OSE situation. Looking to a class C article with no discussions doesn't demonstrate anything as far as general consensus is concerned. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 02:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it's not just some unknown article - it has 107 watchers - most are all established editors and admins and none have brought up a issue. Unless you think a person who calls themselves a writer is less worthy of a bibliography than a Wiki editor. Are you going to question the watchers of that articles judgement? If not why is a person who publishes writing less deserving of a bibliography than a Wiki editor? If you believe that these sections are agaisnt wiki policy, why are you not bringing it up there instead of here, are you ignoring policy violations - if it is one? Admins are on that talkpage, surely you wouldnt just ignore a policy violation by not bringing it up? If you wont, what happened to your strong support of WP:MOS, WP:NOT, WP:BLP, WP:POV? Why is this article special and should be treated differently to that one, especially if admins don't see an issue there? Many questions, but it begs one to wonder why it wasn't brought up on that talk page by the strong policy supporter! GuzzyG (talk) 02:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * not just some unknown article You're the bringing it up. Why? It doesn't appear to be a useful line of discussion of you're simply bringing up concerns to immediately knock down.
 * Are you going to question the watchers Stop with the BATTLE please.
 * why are you not bringing it up there OSE, as already pointed out.
 * I suggest you give it break. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 02:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I am asking fair and legitimate questions, how is a article - that ADMINS don't have a problem with - not applicable? It proves that it's established to have this in a article. You appear to apply rules to some and not to others - the fact you care about policy so much but only on articles of a contentious background (porn) seems odd. I trust an admins judgement on whats applicable in a article - do you? If so - why are we picking and choosing what articles to apply rules on? These are fair and legitimate questions, but you repeatedly ignore questions and bring up BATTLE everytime. I suggest you bring it up in ANI, because i am only asking questions that relate to the discussion. Why are we treating articles different.The only option is the article on the wiki editor is being treated differently - if not, than what is the difference? Why is policy keeping it out on this article - in which you have a strong opinion on - but you don't bring it up on that article too? I've only ever asked one question that could be answered simply here - why are wiki standards different across articles - and for this article specifically why do admins not care about policy violations in one article if it's a policy violation on this one? It's one question - not a battleground at all. Because if it is truly a policy violation, than everyone on that other article is violating policy - which is a bold claim. GuzzyG (talk) 02:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I am asking fair and legitimate questions Clearly the opposite. Arbitration Enforcement applies. Please drop it. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 03:43, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Stop assuming bad faith in me, do you have a reason to assume bad faith in my questions? Again- a simple question, why are standards different per article? Why are admins ok with a policy violation? Why instead of answering a simple and easy question, you assume bad faith in my questioning? If Arbitration strikes me for inquiring about rules on this website from someone knowledgeable of the policy like you, so be it. GuzzyG (talk) 04:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:COOL. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 05:57, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Just my two sense, but 100% GuzzyG your making an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument and it's not relevant because they different articles, about people with different careers, that are known for doing completely different things. Emily Temple-Wood includes the works she wrote, because that's literally what the article is about, her writing. Whereas, this article is not about a writer. She is not known for being a writer. The article doesn't exist because of it. It has zero relevance at least as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Wikipedia isn't a directory and not everything a person does needs to be included. There's a myriad of celebrities, which she doesn't even really count as, who write special interest pieces in random magazines and none of their articles mention their writing at all. There's plenty of sports personalities who do the same and none of their articles mention it at all Etc. Etc. In this case, she is being "Treated differently" then Emily Temple-Wood, because she is different then Emily Temple-Wood. In no way or they the same person. Nor should their articles be the same. It is simply a fact that people who are different are treated differently. That's life. That's Wikipedia. There's nothing wrong with it. This is not Steve Jobs article. This is not the queen of England's article. It's not Dave Ramsey article. Nor are their articles each other articles. Period. That's just a fact. Also, who watches the page isn't relevant to literally anything. Consensus, or what is good for an article, is not based on who watches it. It's 100% only based on the guidelines and consensus that is came to on a talk page. Period. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:19, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The HuffPost (a respected journalist outlet) marks her as "Casey Calvert is a prominent adult performer, writer, and sexual educator", would that be wrong? It's clear she's presented as a writer - anything extra is dismissive and is a personal opinion based on her career. Who are we to doubt? What's traditionally considered writing - writing for journalistic outlets or writing Wiki articles? "It's 100% only based on the guidelines and consensus" but if the consensus on this article is that this information is a violation of policy for one - than surely the same exact thing for someone else would be the same - because it's a policy violation, unless wiki policy and violations are something to be ignored instead of held consistently through out articles? Why the snide little "There's a myriad of celebrities, which she doesn't even really count as"? This is diminishing the subject, showing that theres a strain of non-neutrality here of pre-conception bias. Looking at it completely neutral - this person is an actor from a genre of film, by definition if popular a celebrity - anything else is personal opinion and diminishing the subject. We either ignore her designation as a writer based on personal opinion, ignore wiki policy on different article or not consider a actor a celebrity. It seems far fetched for me. Strange shoutout to Dave Ramsey, but someone who's known as a devout Christian, would probably not like being cited here!!! GuzzyG (talk) 11:20, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You didn't identify the specific reference, but HuffPost refs look like primary and promotional sources in this case. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * My point wasn't to use it as a reference but that one of the most known journalism outlets today identified her as a writer in it's description of her, in which she has written multiple pieces for over a 3 year period - so on what authority is she not? The words of two wikipedia editors? So in that case - why is it okay for one article and not for another? Why is Adamant1's word on who is a writer worth more than a journalistic outfit without slipping into personal opinion? Also, do you think HuffPost runs promotional puff pieces, if not - why the claim that it's a promotional source, when the article is not used as a source - but as evidence of her writing for them? You seem to imply promotion all the time, but never back it up with hard evidence. Tell me why the word of a editor who has shown personal opinion and contempt towards the subject in their judgement ("There's a myriad of celebrities, which she doesn't even really count as") is more important to define someone as a writer than a journalism outfit in which she was hired as a writer? I have two specific questions for you - is someone who writes for a journalism outfit a "writer"? Is a wikipedia editor more of a "writer" than someone who writes for a journalism outfit? I just see major inconsistency here on how we treat different articles and that's never ok for a neutral encyclopedia. GuzzyG (talk) 17:23, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * My point wasn't to use it as a reference Then we have no references at all? Then there's nothing to discuss. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not gonna re-link to a page that's already linked in this discussion in the first post, it's not my fault if you're too lazy to read the existing links. Have you not even read the links, posted here? GuzzyG (talk) 21:43, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "is someone who writes for a journalism outfit a "writer"?" It's not a question of who is "more" of a writer. It's not a competition. The question is if someone who writes is "notable" for their writing. Otherwise, we could include that she skis, cooks, Etc. Etc. Which we don't. Or look at this way, would Emily Temple-Wood have an article in Wikipedia right now if it wasn't for her writing? The answer is no. Would Casey Calvert have one if the articles she has written aren't included in the article or if she hadn't of written them? The answer to that is clearly yes. It's not a double standard. It's simply that people are notable for different things and not everything a person does is worth putting in an article. Also, 100% what Hipal said. There's nothing to discuss if we have no references. I suggest you put down the stick.--Adamant1 (talk) 18:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There's no stick - i'm just dissecting your points and asking why you hold two articles to different standards - giving pass to policy violations. Do you think a person can't be notable for two things at once? All because she's not called a writer in the article doesn't mean she is not one - it just means no one has edited it to say she is. Do you think the audience of her acting career and the audience of the readers who may know her for her Huffpost writing overlap? Not always, so there is some people who know her as a writer. Anything extra is personal opinion - she writes published pieces - she's a writer. How is your (shown to be negative) adamant opinion any more of a authoritative source to counter the basic fact of her being a writer? She's a author with published essays (in Coming Out Like a Porn Star: Essays on Pornography, Protection, and Privacy), by technical definition a writer. Infact i'd like a source that calls wikipedia editors writers and not just people who edit a website, do you have one? GuzzyG (talk) 21:43, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter which opinion is "positive" or "negative" (not that I'm being negative anyway and your seriously not assuming good faith claiming that I am). It matters which opinions are the "correct" ones and based on the guidelines. In this case mine and Hipal's opinions are. Yours aren't. Period. If you disagree so much, do an RfC about it. I could really care less, because as far as I'm concerned the more opinion's that aren't yours or Rite Cites the better. Even if they disagree with mine. Until then though, drop it. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:25, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What Wikipedia guideline says that a published author cannot be described as a writer? If we admit that a published author in a book is a writer - than that takes away your claim that this article is any different than the wiki article you justified including the same info for because ones a writer. "There's a myriad of celebrities, which she doesn't even really count as" is the example of per-conceived negative bias against the articles subject, if you can't admit that she's a celebrity (actor with a following of 500k atleast) than how can i trust your judgement that a published author is not a writer when it seems to be so obvious (published author = writer)? There is absolutely no Wikipedia policy that says that a published author is not a writer - which is my central argument - than i'm just applying your argument that these sections are ok for writers and if they're not ok for writers - than you are blatantly ignoring Wiki policy by not bringing up a policy violation on that articles talk page. It's a simple take - nothing more and nothing less. I don't care strongly either way other than your message being inconsistent with articles being held to different standards and that you seemingly ignore "policy violations" on certain articles. GuzzyG (talk) 16:15, 5 November 2020 (UTC)


 * See example, The Economist, moderated by Helen Joyce, International section editor, The Economist Newspaper &mdash; "She has written about porn for the Huffington Post and the book “Coming Out Like a Porn Star: Essays on Pornography, Protection, and Privacy”, and gives talks about BDSM and fetishes at venues across America, including universities.". Thank you, Right cite (talk) 22:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Primary and promotional, once again, right? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:57, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Reviewed by Helen Joyce, International section editor, The Economist Newspaper. Right cite (talk) 22:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you not understand the question? Please review Biographies_of_living_persons. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 23:03, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you not understand the basic reality that we do not have to source jobs when we have eyes? Where is your source that a published writer is not a writer? This is a big reach. It's a simple basic fact. Start a RFC if you're so confident. By definition Casey is a writer, anything else is personal opinion. GuzzyG (talk) 21:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Please drop the stick. ArbEnf applies. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 00:12, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Responding to your arguments is not having a "stick", it's called discussion, why do you assume bad faith? Would ArbEnf not take your bad faith accusations of me having a stick into account too? I'm just a editor responding to others arguments in a discussion. I've never insulted anyone or been negative. GuzzyG (talk) 16:15, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We disagree. No bad faith here, and happy to refactor anything. Are we working to improve this article or not? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:19, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , you seem to be making valid, rational, logical arguments in a discussion. Your comments appear to be polite and to the point in nature. I do not see where you have said something that could be construed as a "stick" of any kind. You seem to be calmly discussing and talking things out on the talk page. That would seem to be the very purpose of the article talk page, to hash things out politely, which you are doing. Right cite (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with that. GuzzyG said I'm taking the position I am because I have a negative view of the person. Which is not true, nor polite and rational. Also, they have asked me the same question repeatedly when I have already answered. After I asked them drop it and stop asking me it repeatedly. There's polite or to the point about refusing to accept an answer someone gives you. It's not just "having a discussion" either as GuzzyG claims it is, 100% it's trying to beat a dead horse, and is assuming bad faith. There is nothing good faithed about saying someone has a negative view of something just because they disagree with you. Generally, the faux politeness from both of you is really a bad way to go about this. Plus, you added back information that the consensus was against being added. Which wasn't polite either. Not that either one you of is being polite in any way, but 100% someone can be polite, still being a using a stick, and still be approaching this as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Both me and Hipal said you are free to do an RfC about it if you disagree with us. Feel free to. Getting outside opinions is probably the only way this is going to move forward, but beating a dead horse by not accepting our answers about it and continuing to argue isn't going to. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Where's the consensus against it being added? Just from two editors? Is your opinion of consensus two people? GuzzyG (talk) 21:03, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * BLP places the burden on those seeking inclusion. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:09, 5 November 2020 (UTC)