Talk:Janine Lindemulder

Categorization
Lindemulder is not notable as an actor. Her acting is not sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia entry. Lindemulder is notable for her career in pornography. It isn't accurate to categorize her in Category:Bisexual American actors, alongside professional actors such as Joan Crawford, Greta Garbo and James Dean. Joie de Vivre 18:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sexual orientation
Per Biographies_of_living_persons (an official policy):


 * "Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual preference should not be used unless two criteria are met:


 * The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or preference in question
 * The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life

It is my opinion that in this instance, a public sexual performance is not a substitute for public self-identification. I do believe there can be some leniency for historical figures. However, in the case of a contemporary person who makes money from sexual performances, the requirement for a public statement of sexual orientation is especially important. A public sexual performance is not necessarily indicative of sexual orientation, and should not be interpreted as such without supporting evidence. See gay-for-pay for more on this phenomenon. Joie de Vivre 18:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The article makes claims that she was involved in a long-term lesbian relationship. Unless you're willing to remove those, the bisexual category is valid. Valrith 20:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Lindemulder hasn't made any public statement as to her sexual orientation. See Gay-for-pay; sometimes people perform in pornography with people of the same sex but still identify as heterosexual.  We don't know how Lindemulder identifies.
 * Lindemulder's financially-compensated sexual performances do not substitute for a public statement of sexual orientation, which we need, according to WP:BLP and Categorization of people. Joie de Vivre 20:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The article's claim that Lindemulder was involved in a long-term lesbian relationship is not cited, and should be removed per WP:BLP. Neitherday 15:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Protection
I've protected this article until you all can decide on which categories are appropriate. Please work together and seek consensus. -Will Beback · † · 20:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know what there is to discuss -- per WP:BLP, we need proof that Lindemulder publicly self-identifies as bisexual in order for her to be added to the category. Joie de Vivre 21:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. The only argument presented thus far for keeping Lindemulder listed in the category relies on a reference to a claim made within wikipedia article that itself is uncited and needs to be removed per WP:BLP. Neitherday 21:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm with Neitherday. Both the category and the statement claiming a personal lesbian relationship existed need to be removed. Valrith 04:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Since everyone seems so agreeable I've removed the protection. -Will Beback · † · 04:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I just wanted to point out that Valrith's statement of agreement with Neitherday may be misleading. I repeatedly removed Lindemulder from the bisexual-related category on the grounds that we had no sources as to her orientation.  Valrith twice reverted my removal and reinstated the unsourced content, once referring to my edit with the abbreviation "rvv" (which is well known as "revert vandalism").  I'm glad that they have changed their view, to now agree that we need sources and should remove the content.  Joie de Vivre 23:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This article is fucked. Someone should fix it, or it should be recommended for cleanup.

tax evasion
an interesting story. please consider adding. Kingturtle (talk) 15:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Curious. Apparently court records, which are not subject to interpretation or qualification, are nonetheless inappropriate here because a third-party has not "reported" the same information. In other words, information is not deemed accurate or verifiable unless it's on the internet, even though you can walk down to the courthouse and view it there (or, in my case, log onto a restricted-access website to view court records). Consequently, readers are denied access to current, correct, and readily verifiable information because it lacks a hyperlink. Worse, the removal of that information is undertaken by people who have no actual knowledge as to whether their edits are warranted or correct - and I would like to think accuracy mattered. Apparently it does not. For certain, the legitimacy of the entire Wiki project is called into question by ignoring public record information unless and until an untested third-party reports on it. In other words, the readily available court file is not a verifiable source, but a newspaper article that, perhaps inaccurately, reports on the same court file is deemed a verifiable source.Lawduck (talk) 03:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That's where WP fails the most. In the hunt for the all-powerful "verifiability" the facts and truth can be utterly omitted by those who--although they have honest goals--are not in complete acquisition of the facts. And how could they, with the data so needed being beyond their reach (in a protected data system such as LN, or whathaveyou)? Perhaps, WP needs to have a handful (I think 5 is appropriate) people who can access these restricted systems and can verify the data within--or export it--or obtain it via other methods that would allow inclusion. Regardless, this is one of the reasons WP has issues: the people who are in authority to know something cannot get the required verified material out in a manner that is accepted by the masses, and as a result everything WP stands for suffers. Perhaps a sidestep of teh verifiable requirement needs to be allowed for data that is accurate, obvious, and obtainable--but not perhaps obtainable by everyone. We just need enough people to agree on what the data says, or to quote the relevent indexing material from the data store itself (case numbers, etc.) 192.44.136.113 (talk) 20:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Citations to the texts of court decisions, judgments, orders, etc., are acceptable in Wikipedia as long as the rules on Verifiability and No Original Research, etc., are followed. Wikipedia is full of them, regardless of whether they are available on the internet. Citations to texts of court decisions are generally primary sources. There is a tendency in Wikipedia to favor secondary sources over primary sources, but there is obviously no prohibition on using primary sources. Unless things have changed, I know of no Wikipedia rule that says that information is not deemed accurate or verifiable merely because it's not available for free on the internet.

I have noticed an erroneous tendency among a few editors to equate citations to primary sources with prohibited "original research." That is incorrect. The mere use of a primary source does not, in and of itself, constitute original research. I'll go a step further: Even an article that is heavily weighted with primary sourcing might contain original research -- or it might not. Famspear (talk) 02:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't forget WP:BLP, particularly the section WP:WELLKNOWN, that prohibits the use of "trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has already cited them" in biographies of living people due to the presumption of privacy which applies to this subject. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, but here's the rule:


 * Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability. Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source.


 * (Italics added by me; bolding in the original). I don't know how (or if) this relates to the Lindemulder article (I'm not sure what edit we're even talking about), but I take the second sentence of the "rule" as something that should be read in close context with the first sentence. Let me illustrate.


 * Suppose we have an article that mentions the legal problems of a particular person, maybe with sources mentioning a federal criminal trial involving that person. And let's say that Wikipedia consensus has already been established that this person is notable, and that this person's criminal trial is notable, etc., etc. Let's say that the trial has already been mentioned in the article (the fact that it started on such and such a day, what the charges are, the fact that it's ongoing, what the defendant faces if convicted, etc.).


 * Now, let's say that a guilty verdict has just been handed down, just a few hours ago. Assuming that the actual, physical document showing the guilty verdict -- the actual, physical document signed by the foreman of the jury -- has just been posted on the Court's case docket for that case, in PDF format, which means it has now been available on PACER for the past few minutes -- but the story of the verdict hasn't yet hit the news media -- i.e., no secondary source for the verdict yet. (For those who don't know, PACER, or Public Access to Court Electronic Records, is the U.S. Federal court web site. To access it, you need an account, a user name, and a password. The actual court documents are downloaded in PDF format, but the federal courts charge 8 cents page.)


 * Under these circumstances, this actual document from the Court itself is obviously far more reliable that any news media report about the document. In fact, the actual verdict paper "form" consists only of a "check the box" list (check the box "guilty" or "not guilty"), with the signature of the foreperson of the jury and, often, the imprint of the Clerk of the Court showing the docketing of the document, case number, etc. And the corresponding entry of the Clerk of the Court for that item on the case docket will generally say something like "entry 43, Dec. 30, 2008, Jury Verdict, guilty," etc., etc. There is no Wikipedia editorial "interpretation" involved in the act of accurately reporting the fact that the Court has entered this verdict, even though this is obviously a reference to the primary sourcing for this (i.e., the Court itself).


 * For this set of facts, the verdict is relevant to both the notabilility of the living person and the notability of that person's criminal trial -- since the trial itself is already covered in the article (with either primary or secondary sourcing, or both). Thus, the "presumption" that the person's criminal trial is somehow a "private" matter has already been rebutted, by Wikipedia consensus. In this situation, where privacy is no longer an issue, I would argue that it makes little sense to say that the Wikipedia article can mention the indictment and the trial, but something as simple as reporting the verdict must wait until the media reports it -- when the very best (and absolutely authoritative) source for the verdict is already available.


 * I would argue that once Wikipedia consensus has found that the subject of the person's criminal trial is notable and is not a proper subject of "privacy" considerations any more, it doesn't make sense to say that the verdict must somehow remain a "private" matter until the news media reports that verdict. Anyway, that's my view. Thoughts, anyone? Famspear (talk) 04:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm citing a less stringent sourcing standard than what you quoted since I consider Mrs. Lindemulder to be a public figure. As for your newsbreaking rationale, reporting the verdict before secondary sources get to it, there is the WP:NOT dilemna. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Yikes. Now I'm reading the article. We have problems. First, this lady was not charged with tax evasion. She did not plead guilty to tax evasion. I just checked the docket.

This is a common problem in Wikipedia and in media articles on federal criminal tax matters. The media (and, by extension, Wikipedia) tends to misuse the term "tax evasion" to mean in general any federal tax crime. If I were her lawyer, I would be all over this.

I'll post further explanation shortly. Yours, Famspear (talk) 05:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've made some corrections. First, under U.S. federal law, "tax evasion" is a felony. There is no such thing as "misdemeanor" federal tax evasion. The subject of this article was not charged with tax evasion, which is 26 USC 7201. She was charged with willful failure to pay tax, which is 26 USC 7203, which is a misdemeanor. And she pleaded guilty to the 7203.

This has been a recurring problem in Wikipedia, as members of the media chronically and incorrectly refer to all federal tax crimes as "tax evasion." Tax evasion is much more serious, will get you up to five years in prison, and is harder to prove, than a section 7203 "willful failure to pay" (for which the maximum is one year in prison).

Unfortunately, one of the secondary sources, an article, uses the term "tax evasion" in its title. Obviously I cannot "change the title" of the sourcing article that mentions "tax evasion", even though the title is wrong. I deleted the term everywhere else I could find it.

Fortuitously, this is another example of why I contend that primary sourcing is more reliable than secondary sourcing in certain specific areas of Wikipedia, especially in the area of U.S. federal tax law. The idea of preferring secondary sourcing over primary sourcing sort of breaks down a bit -- when you see the errors that have been made in Wikipedia articles on living persons. On technical legal federal tax matters, there is just no satisfactory reason not to double check the actual court records (the primary sources) to verify the accuracy of the secondary sources. Famspear (talk) 05:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

For a related, and somewhat recent, discussion of the problem of Wikipedia (and news media) misuse of the terms "tax evader" and "tax evasion" and how it was handled with respect to Wikipedia categories, see:. Yours, Famspear (talk) 06:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to say that Editor Morbidthoughts raises an interesting point -- that Wikipedia is not journalism. I admit that the point does tend to oppose my example of reporting the verdict from the primary source before the secondary sources can get to it. Famspear (talk) 06:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * PS: As everyone has probably surmised by now, I am a tax geek. I edit somewhat heavily in the area of tax law articles. I believe this is the first "tax article" I have edited that contains the word "nipples." Taxes are soooo interesting! Goodnight to all.... Yours, Famspear (talk) 06:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Source credibility/reliability
We have a problem. avn.com may be generally a reliable source, but they seem to have revamped their site, and the links are dead, and apparently not available from the Wayback Machine. Also, justjanine.com seems to be a personal site of a friend, and it's credibility, even under WP:SELFPUB, is questionable, she being not in a good "position" to complain. (And I came here from the tax side, also; however, I've seen tax articles with the word "nipple" before. Consider the famous case deciding that breast implants can be a tax deductible business expense....) — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I updated the AVN link. They have a habit of moving their files around but never outright delete them. It's annoying. Yes, I remember reading about the breast implants case in my Income Tax class. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Wait a minute. Did EVERYONE here find this article because of the TAX aspects of the case? What kind of people am I associating with, here? Famspear (talk) 22:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * PS: I can honestly say that I had never been, uh, exposed, to Janine's, uh body of work, before discovering this article. I guess I gotta get out more..... (But, on the other hand, who says tax law is boring, right?) Famspear (talk) 22:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

High School Graduation
It is noted in the beginning that she had graduated high school while at the end of the article she was going to get her GED. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.173.251.226 (talk) 04:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I also noticed this and made an edit, but it was reverted like lightning by user:A8UDI. Leaving a school and graduating are not the same thing. --72.28.181.123 (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Felony Convictions
I edited the "another" out of the "another convicted felon" reference to her current husband. Despite the claim of the referenced article, the subject of this entry was convicted of a misdemeanor, not a felony, as per the above discussion. Wilsonchas (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Good catch. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Public Barnstar
The barnstar below is given in recognition of this edit.

Early Life
Why inst that section deleted and merged with the introduction, it not likely to get much longer, it may be redundant.TheHappiestCritic (talk) 21:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and deleted because the section the information in the section is contained in the info box, if someone disagrees feel friend to change edit.TheHappiestCritic (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Bass Player
- an IP editor has been adding that Janine Lindemulder is a bassist - there is no evidence for this - Discogs lists her only music-related credit as appearing on the sleeve of Enemy of the State by Blink-182 - WP:BLPSOURCE says, "material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion." - unless a reliable source (WP:RS, WP:VERIFY) can be found to confirm that she is a bass player the content should not be included in the article - Epinoia (talk) 16:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)