Talk:Angela White

Untitled

This page has been well researched and sourced. It has also been online for some time so I don't understand what the issues are. Please advise. Lach23 (talk) 08:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with sources being used. Obviously they come from the field of pornography which some people may find distasteful, but that is the industry Angela White works in. Periglio (talk) 20:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Read WP:BLP and WP:RS. These are not reliable, independent sources. The article was riddled, for example, with self-serving, self-promotional claims from the subject's own website. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read them. WP:SELFPUB There are 4 lreferences to her website, all other sources point to independent magazines and similar. Periglio (talk) 00:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me the biographical facts sourced to her web site are ok, per WP:SELFPUB. The AVN source looks ok at a first glance, for education; are there concerns about its reliability? Xbiz also looks reliable although I don't see why "Angela Loves Men 2" is being called out specifically, and that could be considered promotional. Which statements exactly are considered "self-serving, self-promotional claims"? I don't see this except for the award nominations, which are also sourced to the award web sites. I normally take a dim view of large "Awards" sections and wouldn't mind seeing that cut back. I would not include nominations unless she won. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

For God's sake. The AVN profile is unaaceptable; even Wikiproject Pornography says so: "In addition, their porn star profiles are often copied from other sites and cannot be treated as reliable. The XBIZ sources are press releases and presskit pieces. The article text is built almost entirely from self-published sources and self-sourced, self-serving claims. including text cut-and-pasted from the subject's unverifiable promotional biography (ie, copyvio text), in defiance of WP:BLPSELPUB's requirement that "the article is not based primarily on such sources". This is not in any way a close question, and it's astonishing to see experienced editors defending such plainly unacceptable content. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:33, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Please try to assume good faith and be civil. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:56, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Does this now need to be rewritten? AVN and XBiz to my knowledge have always been considered appropriate sources. Lach23 (talk) 05:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

There is some information about sources at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

• There's nothing wrong with using the actual award organization for a valid, reliable citation on who won which award. While it is true that award nominations in this genre don't add to notability for these kind of articles, as long as the info is well-sourced, there's really nothing wrong with including them as well. There's also no blanket ban on using press releases for non-controversial information in Wikipedia articles. Guy1890 (talk) 04:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

COI

I see that someone has put a COI tag on the article, but I don't see any corresponding discussion either here or at WP:COIN. Which contributor appears to have a COI? Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

That would be me. I am just a fan, who is trying to learn to write for Wikipedia Lach23 (talk) 02:20, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

If you are just a fan, and have no official or paid relationship with the subject of this article, you do not have a COI. Is there some other contributor who does have a COI? If not, can we remove the tag? Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

i was hoping that it would be restored to what it was but I wasn't sure if I could do that Lach23 (talk) 04:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Twitter

I was wondering what the deal was with having social media like Twitter under external links. Some articles have it, some don't. Lach23 (talk) 00:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

These are only acceptable if it's the subject's official twitter link, per WP:ELNO. Kendall-K1 (talk) 05:01, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Great, done. Does the same apply for Facebook, etc. Lach23 (talk) 08:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but we normally only provide a single official link. See WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:51, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Filmography

I have added a filmography and wanted some advice and help. I think simplistic is the most effective but should I add in the distributor of each film. Also does this need to be referenced? Lach23 (talk) 10:12, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the distributor being useful but I'm not familiar with the adult film industry. You must have gotten this list from somewhere, is there some reason you don't want to cite your source? Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:14, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Other Wikipedia pages seem to have a filmography without a source, that's why I was askingLach23 (talk) 19:35, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

See WP:WAX. Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

• Please see some WikiProject guidance on this type of info. Complete filographies are frowned upon in this genre of Wikipedia article. Guy1890 (talk) 04:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Sources

I understand now that press releases can't be used for sources but the recent additions I made come from an interview, which I believe is fine. Please advice. Lach23 (talk) 04:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

IAFD filmographies are considered reliable, so that should be ok. @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: why did you remove the filmography? Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

For the reason I stated in the edit summary. In general, such lists are limited to notable entries and should be based on evident, nonsubjective inclusion criteria. Note general practice in other porn performer bios, which do not include such lists. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Your edit summary "as before" did not convey that information to me. Also it would be a big help if you could link to policy or guideline when asked for your reasoning. In this case you could link Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography#Filmographies. Thank you. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

But what was wrong with the additions attributed to the AVN article, it was not a press release. Lach23 (talk) 12:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Which additions exactly? Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Additions I made on 19 November, which were removed for being self sourced and self promotional.Lach23 (talk) 14:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

So you mean this [1]? It's from an interview done by a reporter for AVN, and not a press release, so it does seem well sourced, and does not look overly promotional to me. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes that's what I was talking about. Can this be put back in? Lach23 (talk) 19:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I would be in favor of restoring this. I suggest you wait a bit to give time for the editor who removed it to respond. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks for all your help so far Lach23 (talk) 00:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC) Do you think we can restore it now, or keep waiting? Lach23 (talk) 08:27, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

• Local consensus cannot override BLP and RS policy. If you do not stop reinserting without genuinely independent, reliable sourcing I will seek administrative intervention. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:02, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Independent reliable sources

I am once again seeking guidance about what are appropriate sources. AVN and XBIZ from what I have seen are commonly used on Wikipedia but here they are considered unreliable. Please advise. Lach23 (talk) 15:21, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Did you read Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography#Useful links? What else did you want to know? Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:11, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

If you're talking about the interview, I would assume the problem is that since it's an interview it's only usable for what the subject said, not for statements of fact. Although no one has actually come right out and said that. Without knowing what the specific objection is, it's hard to say. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I think the other issue is that it’s a grey area. Some articles about the adult industry seem to be able to use interviews even press releases from XBIZ and AVN and some don’t. I will reread the interviews and see what I can come up with. I know there is a direct quote about her becoming a Fleshlight Girl in one of the interviews I read. I did read the link you sent through and it’s useful to a point. Thanks again for your help. Lach23 (talk) 06:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Don't get too hung up on what is in other articles. Policy counts for a lot more. Interviews are fine, but can only be used as a source for what the subject said. So if Angela says in an interview, "I went to college," that could be used as a source for "Angela says she went to college," not for "Angela went to college."

I think the problem with Fleshlight Girl is not so much the sourcing as the promotional aspect. If the only source we have for this is a press release or an interview, then there is no evidence that it's important enough to be included in the article. Proper sourcing is necessary for inclusion, but not always sufficient. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I will say it’s confusing but I’m here to learn. In regard to the Fleshlight Girl I thought being the first Australian made it notable. I will open a new section about her films at some point but if we were to detail each one as it was released, is this to promotional?Lach23 (talk) 12:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

For something like that, you need independent sourcing. Anyone can start a company and issue a press release saying whatever they want. But to include it in an article, it needs to be sourced by a news organization independent of the subject. The idea is that it's not important enough to include here unless some reporter has decided it's important enough to publish. As for the filmography, take a look at the filmography policy I linked earlier. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Working as a politician?

She ran for office once or twice, but can we really say she "began working as a politician in 2010"? That sounds like she switched careers and I don't think that's the case. Kendall-K1 (talk) 06:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Standing for parliament had more to do with her being an active campaigner on a specific issue rather than an ambition to rule the country. Periglio (talk) 09:41, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Webcam model

We haven’t got to Webcam model yet but I added to appearances in other media where she talks about it. Can we add that to the introduction or do we need more evidence?Lach23 (talk) 12:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

You need an independent source. See my comments on the Fleshlight above. Otherwise we're just providing free advertising. If the webcam work is notable, it will be covered by a news organization. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

How’s the following? I don’t mention the site she works on to avoid it sounding promotional.

In an interview by AVN White discussed how she enjoyed connecting with fans through webcamming and stated she doesn’t see a time when she will stop doing it. She feels that the adult industry will move more toward live shows to get around the issues associated with piracy. ref name="avn01" Lach23 (talk) 05:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

That looks fine to me, assuming she said those things. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Awards

I have adjusted the awards to a more simplistic style, which I feel is better. It now has just the awards she has won and is up-to-date to the best of my knowledge. Let me know if you see any problems with it.Lach23 (talk) 06:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Infobox

Hello all, this is the first time I was on this page in awhile. What happened to all the information (Birth date, height, etc.). It was sourced by IAFD is this not enough? Thought I'd say here before editing and having it swiftly rejected and removed. Thanks in advance and happy editing!

- User:Blueairforce (User talk) 17:56, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Her birthday is on March 4th according to her Twitter account. Now i need source for the year of birth. 2804:431:D77C:6E0:C4E7:C76B:4431:4058 (talk) 18:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

The March 3rd tweet (promoting a sponsorship deal) is arguably OK as a source for White's birthday (but a non-commercial source would be better). For the other info, user-generated content such as on IAFD is not usable. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Shall I ask her or is that not a reliable source? Periglio (talk) 07:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

It depends; if you're simply asking someone in private and then adding the information to Wikipedia, then that would be original research. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:42, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

In general it's better to err on the side of privacy regarding living people, and avoid giving full dates of birth unless they have been widely published in independent, reliable sources, or by the subject themselves. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Awards list was deleted

Near as I can tell, this revision is the last time a full awards section listing was in this article. If any of this is deemed worthy to return to this article, this can be a starting point. Zaathras (talk) 22:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, this is kind of ridiculous. 2 problems. One, all of the AVN citations, 2015-present, appear to be citing a pdf from the 2013 awards. Two, I've skimmed through a bunch of other porn performers, and none have a long, bloated list like this. All of the noms need to go, and change the header to just "Awards" to match the countless other articles. Zaathras (talk) 05:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

IP user continuously mucks up awards listings.

Not out of any real interest in the subject, but rather for the sake of accuracy, I spent several hours a few months ago (edits here) fixing some of the awards links. Over the last few years, an IP-hopping editor keeps adding new entries, but keeps pasting a now-seven-year-old link to the 2015 awards (see here and here). Not sure what to do here. I don't have the passion to pore through the awards every year to see who won the Best Gaping Closeup or the Hottest 8-Way Scene Award, but if left to their own devices, this joker just mucks it up year after year after year. Zaathras (talk) 23:57, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Persepctive → Perspective

locked article.2603:8000:D300:D0F:D5D:8295:289E:24F5 (talk) 03:57, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done Pabsoluterince (talk) 00:37, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Photos

Hi Zaathras. I'm here to discuss the removal of the photos I added.

You mentioned that "the new categories are fine, we'll retain those, but the photographic clutter is unnecessary".

I specifically spread the photos out across different sections/subheadings to avoid any clutter. Only two of which appear in the same section, of which it is a very large section of awards and is thus unaffected by any clutter. The photos don't in any way negatively affect the readability of the article.

You also said, "Just because multiple images exist at the COmmons doesn't mean we have to try to slam them all into one article."

In no way did I add all of the photos of this person that are available on Wikimedia Commons, there are still plenty of others there. Helper201 (talk) 07:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that photos should illustrate the concepts in the article, not be merely decorative. A bunch of random publicity shots of the subject don't convey any additional useful information, and the racy nature of the photos is simply gratuitous absent any concrete illustrative purpose. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Thesis not well referenced

The thesis of Angela is referenced without her name, and with a lot of editor's names. It makes it look like she is not the main author. Can you change it? By the way, it is not clearly said in the article, but she obtained her Ph.D. in Melbourne university in 2017. 2A02:842B:FC2:C601:E138:3B93:8584:8191 (talk) 11:17, 11 November 2023 (UTC)