Talk:Linda Lovelace/Archive 1

Cleanup
I just gave this article a major cleanup, as it was loaded with unsourced allegations and there were many POV problems. I've re-written many passages presenting claims of coercion and violence so that the claims are now attributed directly to Lovelace. Also removed some stuff at the top of the page about her being "abducted" and forced into marriage and prostitution that was unsourced and presented as fact. These allegations are now mentioned further down the article, and attributed to Lovelace and other sources. I also removed a poem that added little to the article and was inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.141.88.96 (talk) 09:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Date of death
As this Wikipedia article was the only one with April 23 as date of death, and all other resources I could find said April 22, I assumed a mistake was made and changed the info. -- Eric

Non-English
Removed non-English version that looks like an copy and paste of a news entry.

I moved the Portuguese text to the appropriate Wiki. I think the preferred name of this article should be the name that people know and expect--which is "Lovelace". We're not here to eulogize, but to report. The title of an article should be whatever is most likely to be linked ad-hoc from other articles, and I don't think "Boreman" is going to come up in other texts. -- Lee Daniel Crocker

The first version of this article was a little modified version of the AP story http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020423/ap_wo_en_ge/us_obit_lovelace_2 I tried to rephrase a bit, but the heritage is still apparent. AxelBoldt, Thursday, April 25, 2002

Internal links
What is with all the links in this article? I can see some of them, but "sport-utility vehicle"? It looks like someone is confusing the convention here with perhaps that of another online database. And "April 23"?

Monarchs
By the way, why would not a queen be listed as Queen [name] [Roman numeral]?

Our convention, created after much discussion, is "[Name] [numeral] of [country]", which is about as concise as it's possible to be while still distinguishing adequately among the 40 or so Alberts and Phillips of various European countries. "King" or "Queen" is unnecessary, but for other nobility you do need the title, as "[Name] [numeral], [title] of [place]". We also have a suggested policy of making only those links that are relevant. I rather favor that policy, but many don't. I don't think it's critical enough to be worth actuall removing links unless I happen to be already editing an article for other reasons. --LDC

Surname
'The "Linda Lovelace vs. Linda Boreman" naming discussion was moved to wikipedia talk:naming conventions.' Summary: Some felt that out of deference to the wishes of Linda Boreman and her family (amoung other things) the article should be moved to Linda Boreman. Others strongly opposed this per naming conventions that state that articles should be named for what the largest number of English speakers would either know or easily recognize. "Linda Lovelace", a screen name, is by far the most widely known and recognized -- thus the article is where it is.


 * Personally, I think that throughout the article itself Boreman, aside from the first mention of the name, should be replaced by Lovelace. The article on John Wayne doesn't refer to him as Marion Morrison, the article on Roy Rogers doesn't refer to him as Leonard Sly.  Why should this article be any different? Hayford Peirce 22:18, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * John Wayne liked is made up name. Linda Boreman did not. Keep it as it is. --mav 05:55, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't find that a convincing argument. Again, as someone above stated, we're not here to eulogize, but report.--24.21.255.203 07:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Linda's legacy
It certainly seems that Linda was a victim of considerable physical and sexual abuse, which is indeed beyond tragic. The adult film industry was rife with these practices during the 1970's and has encouraged same throughout America's less-enlightened, less educated areas since then. Still, I can only hope that she took some comfort before passing in two facts: One, Deep Throat will probably always be the greatest adult film of all-time, and a real piece of cinematic history. And two, her abilty to perform fellatio will be a celebrated talent for many years to come. Rest In Peace, Linda.


 * Anyone who, 32 years after the debut of Deep Throat, still calls it the greatest adult film of all time has clearly never seen another porn movie. Aside from being the most famous porn movie of all time, it is probably the one thousandth best, if that.  And certainly her ability to perform deep throat introduced a new pleasure to the world -- but it has been commonplace in many movies since then.  But she will be remembered for that -- just the way Babe Ruth is still remembered today: as a great pioneer in his field. Hayford Peirce 22:18, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually, I read Joe Bob Briggs' book on "shocking movies" today, which included, in the chapter on Deep Throat, a quote from Harry Reems saying that it's not actually that pleasurable an experience. It's impressive to watch, but it doesn't feel particularly wonderful, compared to normal fellatio. DS 04:20, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I remember reading the same thing several years ago. I haven't received enough deep throating to qualify as an expert critic and appraiser of it, but I'd say off-hand from my fairly limited experience that Harry is correct: it's an OK sensation but nothing that I'd miss if it were never experienced again.  On the other hand, a couple of gay friends of mine tell me that they love receiving it.  I think that maybe it depends on the skill of the person doing it -- if it can be done in a smooth, continuous motion, back and forth as in regular fellatio, it's probably more enjoyable than when the deep throater has to actively work to cram things in, so to speak, which is probably the case with most people doing it.  In any case, it is perhaps an experiment that should be more closely studied under clinically controlled circumstances.... Volunteers, anybody? Hayford Peirce 17:33, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

External verification
A lot of this article has just been changed rather abruptly. May I make the suggestion that, since Linda Boreman showed a particular propensity to say one thing at one time and something completely contradictory at a later time, anything for which we have only Boreman's word should be marked as such? -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:45, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm on. Maikel (talk) 07:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

David Winters
There's some question about whether Marchiano was Boreman's second husband, or her third. The second, if it wasn't Marchiano, was Eric Winters. Can anyone find out anything about whether they were actually legally married? -- Antaeus Feldspar 8 July 2005 00:21 (UTC)


 * Actually, I Googled it... It was David Winters. Although there's no mention of them actually getting married, but she was with him prior to Marchiano. See:  and .  -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 8 July 2005 00:49 (UTC)


 * If you look at Joe Bob Briggs's obituary for Linda (one of those quoted at that second URL) he refers to her split with Marchiano as the breakup of her third marriage. -- Antaeus Feldspar 9 July 2005 16:07 (UTC)


 * Ack. Guess I didn't read far enough. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 01:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Naming again
This article should be called Linda Lovelace for the same reason that the article on Julius Henry Marx is at Groucho Marx: Linda Boreman was best known by her stage name, Linda Lovelace, just in the same way that Julius Henry Marx was best known as Groucho Marx. See Naming conventions. The article makes it clear that her real name is Boreman, and that for a long time she rejected her stage name completely, However, it's interesting to note that, long after her rejection of the porn industry, she made a re-appearance as "Linda Lovelace" in Leg Show magazine, and in interviews made after that time, continued to refer to "Linda Lovelace" in the third person as if she was an alter ego. -- Karada 13:43, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for putting us out of our misery and moving the page since everyone but Amorrow agreed with the answer and he only objected because he did his own research to base his decision on what someone connected with the family wanted. --13:50, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank goodness you've made this move! We've disagreed about other things in the past but I'm 100% with you on this.  I'm afraid that Amorrow shows all the symptoms of being an obsessed crank about a single issue and that Linda Lovelace happens to be his particular issue.  I have no objection to the previous title (Linda Lovelace Boreman or whatever the hell it was), but even that was a compromoise, and I strongly feel that like Groucho, John Wayne, and a thousand other examples, this article should be called Linda Lovelace, whether Catherine MacKinnon likes it or not. Hayford Peirce 15:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Use the most common form of the name used in English - Naming conventions (names and titles). Karada is 100% right - this article belongs at Linda Lovelace. &rarr;Raul654 18:50, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Maikel (talk) 10:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Requested change in text
Linda Lovelace → Linda "Lovelace" – Please use quotes on the stage name for the late Ms. Boreman to acknowledge that it was just a stage name. Just the first time in the text of the page. It is how Ms. Boreman's attorney refers to her as. If it were a matter of, for instance, race, rather than gender, there would be no question.
 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~ 


 * Oppose. We don't say "Bob" Hope, why should we say Linda "Lovelace"? Hayford Peirce 00:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Contrary to Amorrow's claim that "there would be no question" if it were a matter of race, a look at Stepin Fetchit shows that Wikipedia's procedure is to locate a person's article under the name by which they are best known, not to make exceptions because someone feels that the image associated with that name is degrading. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose for reasons previously stated. &rarr;Raul654 01:50, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The text box already says the name she was born with, and the text can certainly say that she later stopped using the name. And then used it agian. And then stopped again. 02:23, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Stage names don't have quotes in them. Linda Lovelace has not been spelled anywhere else (to my knowledge) as Linda "Lovelace". Also, refer to the other points made by Antaeus Feldspar. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 03:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose - nothing more to say than has been said. --Noitall 04:23, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Maikel (talk) 10:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Notes on naming
"My name is not Linda Lovelace." -- Linda Boreman

"When naming an article about specific people or specific groups always use the terminology which those individuals or organizations use, self identification (see list below)." -- Naming conventions (identity)

"Several general and specific guidelines further specify that article names preferably: ... 3. are not insulting;" -- Naming conventions (people)

I'm just sayin'. Radgeek 01:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yet "Linda Lovelace" is the name under which she published "Ordeal" and "Out of Bondage." Saranary 18:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm jumping into this argument a bit late but surely the most comparable examples are http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_Stevens and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_tyson both of whom have preffered names but whose pages are titled after there most well known names. Tyson's only seems to briefly mention his name change.Schnizzle 14:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

But there is a large amount of literature treating her as Boreman, which there really isn't for those two examples. She's becoming more famous as a symbol of anti-pornography under this name than as an actor under Lovelace. Pick any anti-porn feminism and a mention of her (by her chosen name) is likely. I think the move should be reconsidered 129.67.125.194 (talk) 09:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Everything about Lovelace's historical significance follows from her film persona, including the later embrace of her apostasy. Had Linda Boreman never made Deep Throat, her tribulations would not be singled out today.69.114.164.41 (talk) 07:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

1970 car accident
Minor correction - her car accident was in 1970. The 1969 is gaining popularity from an error in a National Review article by Job Bob Briggs._70.120.166.202 00:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Changed POV statements under "Books"
I changed the following statement:

"Boreman, with other writers, has written two autobiographies:


 * Ordeal (1980) ISBN 0517427915
 * Out of Bondage (1986) ISBN 0425106500

There are also so-called biographies of Boreman that focus mainly on her sexual exploits, whether real or imagined:


 * The Intimate Diary of Linda Lovelace (1974) ISBN 0523003943
 * Inside Linda Lovelace (1974) ISBN 0902826115
 * The Complete Linda Lovelace (2001) ISBN 0970550200 "

It is POV to imply that the first two are Boreman's "real" autobiographies and the other three are "so-called" biographies. (In particular, listing "Complete Linda Lovelace" in which Boreman herself recants certain parts of "Ordeal" and "Out of Bondage", as a "so-called" biography is blatantly POV.) All five books are "as told to" biographies and in all five the actual author could be accused of having an agenda, whether anti-porn or to promote her as a porn star. It is not the job of Wikipedia writers to tell readers which is more authentic. If somebody wants to write a section explaining the circumstances around each biography and what is claimed in each, go right ahead, but please make sure the section is balanced and NPOV.

In the meantime, I've simply listed them as authorized biographies and put them in chronological order. Iamcuriousblue 02:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Softcore movies
"she starred in several softcore movies, which flopped"...marvellous! Auximines 20:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Surely not
"Deep Throat was notable for popularizing oral sex" So oral sex wasn't popular before Deep Throat came out?! I can't believe that. Surely Oral sex has been popular since the first cave man discovered he could stick it in more places than one.Schnizzle 08:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC) I've edited it because it is a ridiculous claim to make. There is no way that Oral sex aws unpopular before the film.Schnizzle 10:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I argued this one a couple of years ago, saying that at least it should read something like "popularizing in the mainstream" or some such. It got beaten down by a bunch of people, including moralists of one stripe or another.... Hayford Peirce 20:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes it was. "Unpopular" as in "not widely practiced" and "widely considered to be a perversion".  Maikel (talk) 10:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As of 1963, 45% of married women reported performing fellatio (Kinsey Institute). Q.E.D. 69.114.164.41 (talk) 06:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It popularized deep throating, not oral sex. 98.246.183.207 (talk) 14:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup?
In seeing the cleanup tag, which parts of the article do contributors and visitors believe need to be cleaned up? -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 03:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Unverified cleanup tags may be removed. Maikel (talk) 10:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Marchiano divorce
One paragraph says 1996. The other says 2000. which is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flabreque (talk • contribs) 12:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Mafia involvement
I removed the text concerning this because it was not sourced and sounds like original research and conspiracy theories. If I'm wrong, please replace with proper sources. --Darth Borehd 04:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, the Mafia involvement is discussed in the documentary, Inside Deep Throat. I agree though that it should be sourced; so someone with a copy of the movie should really add this piece of information back in there. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 05:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually I read the National Review article at the bottom of the page and it is a good source for these Mafia claims. --Gtg207u 05:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Concerning this matter of bestiality
As per [3] and [4] and Ms. Boreman's own autobiographical works cited in [3]m I cannot attack the mentions of bestiality stags. However, I completely disagree with putting the title of ONE stag in the filmography. There are likely dozens of 8mm named stag shorts from the era documented in [3]. Listing ONE stag, particularly the one she reportedly denied making, amounts to commentary on her denial. I am deleting its mention in the Filmography on the grounds that if a 8mm stag short is worth mentioning then all of the shorts alluded to in [3] should be mentioned by name. I don't think that any of the now-likely-unrecoverable 8mm stag shorts constitute a work worthy of a filmography list since they were intended for the consumption of handfuls of people [3]. But if you can dig up names for them then be my guest to list them, just list more than one.--Gtg207u 08:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Her denial is immaterial. It was clearly her (I saw it back in 1972) and it's cited in a standard reference (the IMDB). As to whether it's noteworthy enough to be singled out, well, here we are discussing it forty years later, and nobody cares about all those others.69.114.164.41 (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There were at least three 8mm short 10 minute stag-loops in the genre made by Lovelace during her short career. Far from being unrecoverable, they are widely available on the Internet in modern video format conversions for anybody that goes searching for them. 21(talk) 22:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)₮ ₡€₦₮UR¥ GR€€₦([[User talk:21stCenturyGreenstuff#top|talk]]) 22:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)₮U₣₣ ([[User talk:21stCenturyGreenstuff#top|talk]]) 22:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you saying they should be included? Or just correcting the (obviously) incorrect assertion that those loops were "unrecoverable"?69.114.164.41 (talk) 08:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Just correcting the unrecoverable assertion. The list and names of the bestiality films should be included in her body of work, but ONLY IF an independant verifiable source can be provided...and I cannot find one at present 21(talk) 11:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)₮ ₡€₦₮UR¥ GR€€₦([[User talk:21stCenturyGreenstuff#top|talk]]) 11:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)₮U₣₣ ([[User talk:21stCenturyGreenstuff#top|talk]]) 11:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Residuals and royalties
Currently the Linda Lovelace article mentions that despite the enormous financial success of the movie Deep Throat, "Lovelace received no royalties or residuals". I have also heard similar statements made about the movie's cast in other articles and movies. However, I have to question the relevance of this statement, at least since it is not used for other actors or films. No actor receives residuals or royalties for their acting work in a film unless they specifically negotiate this into their contract, and my impression from reading entertainment news and history over many years is that very very few actors and films have this sort of financial arrangement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.165.102 (talk) 01:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In the porn industry, it's the convention that contracts exclude the possibility of royalties. Unless someone is a true professional, offering royalties entails having to track them down to give them the check.  Times how many actors/writers/composers/musicians/etc, times how many movies, over how many decades.  The average amateur won't receive royalties for their work.  It's just not feasible from a business standpoint.  Now major modern stars like Ron Jeremy or Jenna Jameson have their own contracts that assign royalties for their movies.  They also have agents, publicists, business managers, lawyers etc -- most amateurs are looking for a one-time gig.  So phrasing it like that seems like POV...  98.225.230.65 (talk) 11:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Deep Throat earnings
"Despite the fact that Deep Throat was probably the most profitable pornographic film ever made, Lovelace received no royalties or residuals and died poor. The film is said to have cost $25,000 to make and to have brought in an estimated $600 million worldwide."

This is just an urban legend! No evidence that the film made anywhere near this amount. Check snopes.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.6.160 (talk) 09:19, 24 November 2007


 * In his review of Inside Deep Throat Roger Ebert suggested the box office figures were inflated by the mob as part of money laundering scheme. Sounds believable enough, but I'm not sure where he's getting this information. It may have been explained in the documentary.71.114.32.127 (talk) 02:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This isn't even original research, just memory, but IIRC, the film moved out of "adult" (i. e., porn) theaters and into mainstream theaters in some more cosmopolitan locales. It became very hip for couples (bf/gf or married) to see it. It was even taken up by some "feminists" as a cause to support, in that (in their words) it was the first porn film in history to focus, not on the male's gratification, but on the female's. (It did, and may indeed have been the first, but did they not realize that the "plot" was merely a device for showcasing Linda's rather unusual talent, and not some feminist statement? But who cares -- many men might have been delighted if their woman were to follow Linda's lead, political statement or not.) All this is to say that while there may not be support for the specfic figure of $600 million, the actual figure was undoubtedly much higher than any film that was restricted to pr0n theaters. As mentioned, this is strictly from memory, but someone who wanted to go deep (ouch) into the research could probably find sources to verify this. Incidentally, I searched Snopes for "Linda Lovelace" and "Deep Throat" and came up dry. Regards, Unimaginative Username (talk) 03:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View
I don't think that the article as it is is neutral. The second and third lines currently are "Linda was forced by her abductor and then-husband Charles Traynor to make the 1972 film Deep Throat. When Linda was finally able to escape Traynor, she left the pornography industry and became a spokeswoman for the anti-pornography movement."

This seems remarkably biased, especially without any clear sources that indicate that this is actually what happened. A source quoted in the article (Joe Bob Briggs) actually says that other witnesses at the time say that she was a willing participant and only say that afterwards she recants her participation in the sex industry.

To me it seems as if after her 15 minutes of fame she had a change of mind and lied about her willing participation and her relationship with Chuck Traynor. People sympathetic to her then wrote the article from a biased viewpoint whitewashing her. Of course, I have no proof of this and its not a neutral point of view either, so I'm just going to liberally sprinkle some citation needed tags around the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.184.187.178 (talk) 09:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with the dude above. This article is one of the worst I've ever read on Wikipedia. It refers to the subject by her first name, and sounds like it's been written by a committee of feminists. The whole thing is unbalanced. Lovelace herself initially described the filming of Deep Throat as a "liberating" experience, until she changed her mind many years later. Yet the article makes her sound like some kind of exploited victim throughout. Maybe she was exploited or abused, maybe she wasn't. This article is NOT neutral on the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.141.88.96 (talk) 08:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think part of the problem is that anyone who has read "Ordeal" in their Women's Studies class or seen "Inside Deep Throat" makes a little edit without having read the article in its entirety. Maikel (talk) 13:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Just ask yourselves one question: Which is the more probable situation? Being forced into pornography and under the pressure you´re put on act like you are expected to (praise the movie, tell you are willingly engaged etc.), then later when released from the pressure reveal what it was like back then( that you were raped and forced into it); or is it more probable to willingly engage in pornography and later, after building a certain image, to turn your back on the industry, write books about how you were mistreated, engage in anti-pornography movements, simply to raise one´s popularity? The second case seems so unlikely. So please don´t discredit Boreman in this discussion without the slightest proof whatsoever. I´d appreciate it --shinjirei —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.184.198 (talk) 01:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, the second scenario seems much more likely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.114.95 (talk) 05:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Linda Lovelace for President
Did the film & book result in anyone writing her in in the actual election? Шизомби (talk) 15:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Uncommon porno
Quote: In Deep Throat all her pubic hair was shaved off and she engaged in anal sex — neither was common in pornographic films of the early-1970s.

Why is that relevant? Neither was deep-throat fellatio nor surgically enhanced breasts, and both were featured in Deep Throat. Maikel (talk) 09:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I've removed it. If you want to reinsert this information, please give me a reason.  Thanks, Maikel (talk) 11:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I realize this response is over a year and a half late, but to answer your question, the statement is relevant because it further demonstrates just how groundbreaking this film was, and what a lasting impression it had on the industry, as well as on society in general. It's a logical fallacy (non sequitur) for you to say that "Y and Z were uncommon, therefore the fact that A and B are uncommon is irrelevant to this article." Instead of removing A and B, why not add Y and Z? Although I'd like to see your source for fake breasts being featured in Deep Throat; I don't believe that is correct, I haven't found anything to support it, and the three actresses featured all appear quite natural-looking in that department. I'm going to reinsert the original sentence, and add that deep-throating was also uncommon. Klopek007 (talk) 16:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Intro rewrite
Hi, I've rewritten the intro and weeded it out a bit: Cheers, Maikel (talk) 11:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * we don't have to elaborate on the cultural significance of Deep Throat here, such as the usage of the term within the Watergate Affair; this is more pertinent to the article about the movie itself
 * we don't have to point out that "Linda" perferred to be called Boreman rather than Lovelace; this follows from the fact that Lovelace was her stage name and Boreman her real name, and that she had regrets about her porn career

Traynor divorce, when?
When did she divorce Traynor, 1973 or -4? Thanks, Maikel (talk) 13:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Leftover footage?
Quote: she maintained in her book Ordeal that her later porn films used leftover footage from Deep Throat.

I haven't read the book, so what exactly does she claim there?

Lovelace appears in two post-DT movies, the 1974 "Deep Throat II" (which isn't listed in her IMDb article) and the 1975 "Linda Lovelace for President".

I have seen neither but I think it's safe to say that LLFP couldn't have been made with leftovers from 1972. Since she divorced Traynor at least in 1974, and LLFP was made in 1975, he couldn't have forced her into making this movie. Maikel (talk) 11:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * She claimed and disclaimed that it was made from leftover footage several times. Telling someone who's never seen any of these movies that they were all shot in six days, and pieced together, and then not released at the same time, etc, might fly.  But if you know how the porn industry worked before it was mainstream, you realize that none of that makes sense. 98.225.230.65 (talk) 06:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Lovelace or Boreman?
We really need to decide how to call her in this article. As she used her stage name until at least 2001, is notorious solely for her porn career, and has published all her autobiographies under her stage name, I think for uniformity's sake we should go with "Lovelace".

An alternative would be to call her "Linda", but that sounds partisan and seems unencyclopedic. Maikel (talk) 11:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Enormously successful
I myself wrote that Deep Throat was "enormously successful", but I'm not really happy with the wording as it sounds too enthusiastic. If you can think of a better formulation then please go ahead. Maikel (talk) 14:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Somehow, "enormously" seems... poetically apt. Wouldn't change it for the world! (Seriously, it's unquestionably accurate by anyone's standards, so it's npov. Unless, of course, you want to go for "pulsatingly successful" or "throbbingly successful" :-) Regards, Unimaginative Username (talk) 03:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Lovelace the Musical 2008
Why isnt there a mention of the theatrical play about Linda called "Lovelace:the musical"? there is an official website and a myspace of this play.Books4me (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Infobox error for Linda Lovelace
The Infobox states that Linda Lovelace was born in Denver, Colorado. This is incorrect. She was born in the Bronx, NY. Linda Lovelace died in Denver, Colorado. I tried to fix this myself, but I don't know how edit this information in the Infobox. This error should be corrected. Anthony22 (talk) 01:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

her co-star was a dog.
From the article: "In The Other Hollywood, Eric Edwards, Boreman's co-star in the bestiality film, disputes this claim."

I'm pretty sure if it was a bestiality film called Dog Fucker or Dogarama, her co-star was canine. 38.109.88.194 (talk) 01:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. There can be more than 1 human in the film which would make them a co-star.  Dismas |(talk) 05:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In pornography, "co-star" is usually referred to as the scene partner, not solely someone who also appeared in the film. 38.109.88.194 (talk) 18:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No it isn't. Co-star has the same meaning in any film. No gettin' out of this one, Mr. can't-admit-he's-wrong. 98.246.183.207 (talk) 14:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

There's a man in the scene who assists with the mechanics of the coupling; presumably this is Mr Edwards. He's not what I'd call a "co-star", but he's the only other human visible.24.186.69.59 (talk) 12:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hepatitis
It seems a little unlikely that this was the cause of her transplant 17 years later, rather than hepatitis due to another cause. Rich Farmbrough, 07:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC).
 * Hepatitis C can take years to produce symptoms, and some people remain asymptomatic. My mother is asymptomatic, after contracting HepC in 1975 (ear piercing).98.225.230.65 (talk) 08:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Best name to use in article
Wikipedia naming conventions strongly suggest that we refer to her as "Lovelace" in the article. supporting facts: foreign language articles use Lovelace, Linda Lovelace or Linda, but dont use Boreman. The external links provided all use Linda Lovelace. Harry Reems is called Reems throughout his article. And, as stated above, all her autobiographies are by Linda Lovelace. her appearance before the Meese Commission on porn was as Linda Marchiano. She may have stated she didnt like the name, and her family probably feels similarly, but Lovelace is the name she is overwhelmingly known by, and to call her Boreman through the article just sounds wrong, regardless that it is obviously politically correct and theoretically more respectful. however, we arent writing memorials here. If our culture ever changes enough to decide to refer to her differently, so can we. i would like to change the name used, but want to hear at least one other persons thoughts, in case i actually missed an angle or there is overwhelming consensus among a whole slew of sensitive new age guys (values i support in real life) to keep it as is.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * A compromise seems possible, as there are many subjects who change their name, often more than once. The convention seems to be: use different names in different parts of the entry, making sure there's no ambiguity. In this case, then, refer to her as Lovelace during the years in which she used it, Boreman before and after. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.77.73 (talk) 13:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Legacy fixes needed
I removed irrelevant junk about Lindsay Lohan and various never-produced movies from the Legacy section, but someone should clean up the references to what is currently called "Lovelace: a Rock Musical" (at LovelaceARockOpera.com). The first production was (apparently) in 2003, starring Tina Yothers; I don't know if the 2008 production mentioned was a revision, but it wasn't the premiere in any case. It's also not a "Broadway Musical" until it actually reaches Broadway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.105.214.33 (talk) 16:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)