| Revision as of 11:23, 7 August 2013 editDavid in DC (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers21,601 edits BLP Noticeboard tag← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:06, 7 August 2013 edit undoDavid in DC (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers21,601 edits →NPOV: Conversion. Hers and mine.Next edit → | ||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
| ::I agree with Summer on how ] works here. If you want to spend your time trying to prove XXXchurch is a ], 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. | ::I agree with Summer on how ] works here. If you want to spend your time trying to prove XXXchurch is a ], 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 ], 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[REDACTED] is of ]. 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 ]s. 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 ]. 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 Diety she now embraces in the most responsible way. I'd prefer not to abet the error.] (]) 18:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC) | ::As to ], 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[REDACTED] is of ]. 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 ]s. 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 ]. 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 Diety she now embraces in the most responsible way. I'd prefer not to abet the error.] (]) 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. ] (]) 21:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:06, 7 August 2013
 | Biography Start‑class  | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
| [REDACTED] | Pornography Start‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![[REDACTED]](https://u3vuiephb.global.ssl.fastly.net/File:Pornproject_logo.svg){kind=link}
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 Misplaced Pages 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)
- 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)
NPOV
Kindly cite the exact part of http://en.wikipedia.org/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. - SummerPhD (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[REDACTED] 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 Diety 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)