Talk:Christy Canyon/Archive 1

Contradictory information
I've removed the following, as it is clearly contradictory and gives the article a tone that it is arguing with itself:


 * Christy did one anal scene in "Swedish Erotica 4, Volume #13, Chapter #11. Not true.... the performer was Rayveness who resembles Christy Canyon.

-- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 22:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Measurements
Is there a reference for Christy being a 44D? Somebody changed her measurements to 36DD (which is closer to reality) but it was reverted. Hondo77 (talk) 09:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Christy herself says she is 36DD. No way was she ever 44. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.92.105.24 (talk) 19:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Citations are required for any of this. Xihr (talk) 22:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

XIHR, where do you get your information? The best source is the person herself and Christy Canyon states regularly on her current radio program that she is 36DD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.143.21 (talk) 19:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Then it should be trivial to find some. See WP:RS. Xihr (talk) 08:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Age
I have been a fan of Christy Canyon's (like all of you!) for a long time, have met her in person, seen many many of her films, and I have to say that there is NO WAY she is 41. I would say add 5-7 years to that (at least). When I met her in 1996, I could swear that she was 36. Well, anyway, what do you think? RRoyce6
 * You'll need sources to back up such a claim, not your vague memory. Xihr (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1966 would have made her 18 in 1984, which is about right since that's when she started getting naked. I've met her and people who went to school with her and her age seems right from that perspective, too. Hondo77 (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * On the January 18, 2009 edition of the Adam Carolla podcast recorded live at the Brea Improv, Adam talks about being 19 and asking out Christy Canyon who was 17 at the time. Since Carolla is born in 1964, that would seem to back up the idea that she was born in 1966. Greg Salter (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * An encyclopedia needs more direct evidence than this. Xihr  03:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Photograph
I notice that some effort appears to be being made to use recent photographs of adult film stars of the 70's through 90's, when most of them have lost some or most of their attractiveness. Contrast this to the 1968 picture of Brigette Bardot in her Wiki Article. This strikes me as a subtle but definite violation of the Wikipedia policy against expressing bias. 21:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dick Kimball (talk • contribs)

Upgrade and avoiding libel
This article has been rated "Start Class" and 'Class B" yet whenever anyone who has read the sources and knows and represents the subject submits corrections, others who know nothing undo the corrections. Is filing a libel action on behalf of a livng subject the only way to prevent persons such as Xihr, Dismass, RRoyce 6 and NuclearWaste from undoing corrections?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.89.200.2 (talk) 01:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The libel threat is pretty rich. WP:BLP requires facts, even uncontroversial ones, be cited.  You are the one changing factual statements contained in the article and not providing citations for those changes, hence why people are rightfully resisting your changes.  If the sources are so obvious as to what's correct, then drop the posturing and cite them. Xihr (talk) 01:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Either way, the IP's very mention of a libel action is a violation of WP:LEGAL. Tabercil (talk) 02:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Good point. Xihr (talk) 03:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Who is threatening whom? I did not threaten libel, but I sugested that the livng subject might consider such action. I did not submit changes, I commented on deletions and undos of changes by others. Its annoying to see information which had been properly cited and existed here for months suddenly be changed by a small number of persons, who as I commented, appear to not read or know the sources. Back in March the information was correct and properly cited, but several persons changed almost everything, so I read through the history to see who did what. I advised that the living subject or her representatives might object. Instead of threats and games, let's stick to facts. The article was marked as needing help, and I suggested that help should not be undone. I guess this happens to all porn stars here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.89.200.2 (talk) 11:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Condom Use
"she had protected sex (with condoms) with all of her male co-stars during her time with Vivid Entertainment in the mid 1990s"

Uncited and not true. Movies of hers found on xvideos.com clearly show her having unprotected sex 99.226.181.85 (talk) 12:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Citations and condoms
Why does this article have a note about requiring citations? This article probably has more citations per paragraph than any in Wikipedia. Why is so much space dedicated to the living subject's use or non-use of condoms in her PERSONAL life and so little about her body of work in films, TV and radio? Is the subject known for unprotected sex or for being one ot the top 25 porn stars of all time?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.73.8 (talk) 01:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Revisions
Some recent revisions to other sections somehow caused problems to the section on "Retirement". Why did editing one section by XIHR and others affect the paragraph on "retirement". In any case the article is fixed again, but XIHR and others should check their revisions to make sure that the formatting is not changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.73.8 (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Good for mainstream stars but not porn stars??
Why was the sentence about Celebrity Sleuth's ranking of Christy Canyon removed by Horowitz or whatever his name is, when the following sentence is OK about Jennifer Tilly in her article: "Tilly was ranked #23 in Celebrity Sleuth "25 Sexiest Women of 1995.""

So it is OK and encyclopedic when it is about a mainstream star but not when it is about a porn star? What a censorious double standard. Christy is higher rated in her field than Jennifer is in her's, yet this article may not say so. Drivel about her condom usage is included based upon what an unreliable source said on a radio show, but all the relevant, true information from early 2008 was removed? Is it any wonder why people are reluctant to donate money to wikipedia? Wikipedia should be as least as deferential to porn stars as they are to politicians, who screw many more people in their careers. I wish editors and other "contributors" would identify their qualifications, i.e. whether they have any qualifying academic or real life research/writing/editing expertise, et al. I'd be willing to, but then I will subject myself to charges of elitism. This place is so frustrating to anyone who really cares about facts and the truth without censorship. 71.230.136.207 (talk) 02:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've removed the sentence from the Jennifer Tilly article. Epbr123 (talk) 10:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)