Talk:Jenna Jameson/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Jenna Jameson. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

club jenna

how many times does this article need to mention that club jenna has revenue of $30 million pre year? i would think that one time is plenty, heck, maybe even two times. but 5, 6 times? it's like tito. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.143.189 (talk) 13:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

fix this

pregnant by her boyfriend and martial artist tito ortiz.???? bad grammar. this makes it sound like she is pregnant by two different people. titos job is irrelevant. how about "her boyfriend tito ortiz" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.143.189 (talk) 14:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

THERE IS POLISH TRANSLATION OF HER BOOK (march 2009) polish title "Jak.. kochać się jak gwiazda porno. Opowieśc ku przestrodze" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.74.64.220 (talk) 10:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

just an opinion

where is the info on the laundry list of plastic surgery that jenna has had done on her face? one chin implant? not a chance. look at pictures of her from the mid-nineties. she bears absolutely no resemblance to the face she has now. none. so...what about the other surgeries? true story- i sent an e-mail to tito once telling him that she has to stop butchering her face because she doesn't even look real anymore. a week later, they released a statement saying that jenna is not going to have anymore plastic surgery. however, i think she is addicted to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.143.189 (talk) 14:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Who cares? 83.77.192.232 (talk) 15:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Quite pathetic

It's quite tragic how people spend time writing this big article about a porn actress. I mean come on, it's not like she is a brain surgeon. It's especially tragic since there are numerous other articles that are way more important but with far lesser information. This article was not fascinating. Only boring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.136.132 (talk) 18:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Well you took the time to read it. If you want to read about a brain surgeon or something you feel is way more important then look that up. There must have been some type of curiosity for you to type her name in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.169.90.194 (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe that person didn't type her name in as a search. It was a featured article after all. Why it was a featured article is beyond me. What a sad society we are now.--70.146.150.238 (talk) 20:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

i agree, this is a sad article written by sad people. Dioxholster (talk) 18:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Not saying I support the article, but Wikipedia is a volunteer project that allows anybody to work on any articles they choose, so calling it a "sad article written by sad people" is a personal attack. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 18:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree also, her life is no more interesting that that of a junkie's. The only difference is that she got lucky while many who go along this road end up dead or working in a checkout - nothing particuarly exciting or extroadinary about that or the individual. Essentially anyone born with half decent looks can go down the path of drugs, porn and quick money, no talent required there. As a society and as mass media, decadence to mask ordinaryness is often used to sensationalise and to give a quick thrill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.16.193.46 (talk) 22:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the article? The reasons that this isn't a stub like the majority of porn star biographies on wikipedia is self-evident in the content and the notoriety she's had for ten years. I've always though she was overrated, but that's besides the point, she is a huge deal and is pretty much the female Ron Jeremy. Also, its clear those of you naysaying under this section seem to have a chip on your shoulder or superior view of yourselves in relation to porn that I guess comes from some sense of unwarranted self-importance. "What a sad society". Porn has been a part of society for millenia and your bullshit faux-moralist stance doesn't change the fabric of it or anyone else's opinions that aren't part of a choir of transgressive conservative dodos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.50.156 (talk) 01:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

the moment we start idolizing pornstars is the moment we lose any shred of Ethics that is still left within us. Dioxholster (talk) 14:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Says you. One, most intellectuals would attest that our ethics went out the window somewhere between the Atlantic Slave Trade and World War II, plus you're projecting your own biased slant on what ethics in as you opine here. Also, documentation is a far cry from "idolizing". People with no rationale or points behind their demagoguery tend to exaggerate and inflate claims where they don't exist, lets hope you're not one of those people. This isn't about all of the detractors in this heading, its about her notability, so please keep your Puritanism away from here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.50.156 (talk) 00:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

We lose more ethics idolizing Richard Kyankas, George Ouzounians and Howard Sterns. Pornstars want to gain fame by being used, the ones I mentioned want to gain fame by using others. 83.77.192.232 (talk) 15:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone Please Edit

Jenna Jameson's homepage, which is linked at the bottom of the article, is a pornographic site. A few of the others are too. They look like advertisements with no real educational value. I came to Wikipedia looking for legitimate biographical information, and I don't think that linking to blatantly pornographic sites is in the right spirit. Is this against Wikipedia policy? If not, it should be. Not because it links to something that should be censored but because it links to a site with no informational value. You may as well link to a Google image-search page for "Jenna Jameson" for the same "information."

It's a legitimate link. It's her official site. Maybe, if Barney The Purple Dinosaur had a link to pornography I could see your point of view. This is an article on a ponographic actress, live with it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.191.204.219 (talk) 00:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Questions

Take this as a question, not as a proposal: If wikipedia is not censored, why are there no pictures of porn actors in full nudity sexual explicit scenes? Arent that what they are famous for, what they are notable for? So then, why is it not illustrated? Just wondering. --Striver - talk 17:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Part of being an encyclopedia -- as well as a decent human being -- involves avoiding pornography. -- Newagelink (talk)

Can we add a link to her Virgin Comic? Let's add a link to her new horror comic book series, Shadow Hunter, that's debuting from Virgin soon. Perhaps put it in her post pornographic acting career, and after her book description at the top of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timcanterbury616 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Protection of this article

It's been protected for a year and a half almost... yes, it may get some spam, but shouldn't we assume good faith about IP editors and new users rather than indefinitely protecting this article?? Just a thought. Ta, --1qx (talk) 11:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You can always ask for protection to be removed. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I know I can ask, Darren, I just thought it was better to gain consensus on the issue first though. Ta, --1qx (talk) 11:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You don't need consensus for protection, just evidence of IP vandalism. By the same token you don't need consensus to have a page unprotected, just ask. If the vandalism starts the lock can always be reapplied. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

This page isn't pathetic. It isn't even important enough to be pathetic. It does show, however, that Wikipedia is kind of pathetic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.22.240.9 (talk) 03:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Pregnancy

Has anyone confirmed this yet?(MgTurtle (talk) 18:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC))

ironic really

I found this article about Jenna Jameson after last night's commercial breaks kept showing a trailer for Zombie Strippers.

My whole-hearted thanks must go to all the Wikipedia editors who have spent hours of their time creating this well researched and documented article.

It so important for future generations to know about a woman who'd been double-teamed, spit-roastd and screwed in the ass for money.

Like a wise sage once noted, 'porn exists because the world is full of wankers!!'

Don't forget that porn is the number one industry in the internet. Some people complain about the length and depth of this article. Some even suggest that it should be deleted. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, after all, and the beauty of it is that "people" decide what stays and what goes (see the The Wisdom of Crowds). If a future civilization wants to know more about the internet phenomenon they will check Wikipedia and will find about porn and this article on Jenna Jameson, the "Queen of Porn". Is that pathetic? May be. But this is the world we live in, like it or not, and Wikipedia has to reflect it. UltraEdit (talk) 14:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I say in the case of porn i would be willing to do some 'revisionist history' here and omit all that porn. so when aliens come to our planet or future civilizations come to study our past world, i wouldnt have to be ashamed to have existed in such a world. Dioxholster (talk) 14:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You can no longer be ashamed if you no longer exist. After all it is pretty shameful but you came a read the whole article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.72.52.143 (talk) 17:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Pornography has always been exploitation of the customer, yet it is most often the potential providers of services who complain about it. Ditto prostitution. 76.69.85.161 (talk) 09:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

New Guitar

Jenna II RX10D Rhoads. Not the most noteworthy item, but here's the link: http://www.jacksonguitars.com/products/products.php?group=Rhoads-Body&page=1&product=2940012399 65.92.123.95 (talk) 02:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Dissent Re "Featured Article" Qualification

Please either yank this article or edit it to conform to the standards to which it is purportedly held by its very publisher, Wikipedia. It does not merit its current status as a "featured article." Who on earth was novice enough to make such a designation? The Bronze Star is awarded for an article which is "...well-written: its prose...engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard..." (Wikipedia Standards manual). This article is not. It is a rambling presentation of fragmented events, loosely chronological, with no better than middle-school language usage (See Flesch-Kincaid Standardized Readability Scores). I had never heard of this person until encountering her name in The Atlantic Monthly (December, 2008, Portrait of an Ultimate Fighter by David Samuels, p 96). That this appalling drivel is considered "well-written...engaging...brilliant...and...professional" is apologistic inclusion of drek, not unlike the subject itself, guided by the overweening editorial hand of a horny kid. I would edit the article myself but, fortunately, I know nothing about the subject except this improperly qualified "feature article."Prime-daedalus (talk) 23:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Non-free image use

It appears the non-free cover-art images are being used in violation of WP:FUC. I'm just curious if these images have been discussed before, or if anyone defends their use in the article, or is it OK if I remove them as being in violation? -Andrew c ^[talk] 21:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Is this issue resolved? UltraEdit (talk) 06:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I only see one fair use image being used and it has a rationale specifically for this article. Dismas|^(talk) 07:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I won't fight to the death over the other fair use images, but I do feel strongly about the autobiography cover. It's the obvious and irreplaceable image for the autobiography section, and the autobiography itself was probably the most important single item in Jameson's fame - other parts of the article say as much. The image itself is also not a simple photo: it clearly took a lot of work, and the way she chose to portray herself on the cover expresses her personality in a way that words find it difficult to completely convey. I felt this way since the Featured Article nomination, at which time the issue also came up, q.v., and it passed there. Finally, I don't see any part of WP:FUC that it specifically violates. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 12:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

FAR needed

Urgent cleanup is needed here, (see Wikipedia:Featured articles/Cleanup listing), or this article should be submitted to WP:FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, you go inactive for one lousy year, and your one shiny Featured Article goes to heck. :-) Will fix. I'm still not the most active of wiki mice any more, so would appreciate a bit of time, but will fix. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

All dead links and citation needed's fixed, which is apparently what Wikipedia:Featured articles/Cleanup listing worries about. I do notice that the organization has been changed a bit, and a few seemingly minor factoids added, but ... I'll leave that to others with more time to consider. That's a judgment issue, and I don't want to give the impression of owning the article. It's mine, mine, mine! Ack!--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 12:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The "clear" tags in the article

It was added seemingly without discussion by this user. I have not seen them used like this anywhere else, and unless someone objects or can give me a good reason for them to be there, I will change it back. Nymf _talk/contr. 20:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it was done to keep the images separate. Moved the main offender to the left, removed clear tags. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 00:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Height

5'7 ?? LOL, I think not. 5'4 at best.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.109.16.167 (talk • contribs) 19:34, April 26, 2010

Well, if you can find a reliable source to back it up, then you can change it. We have one right now that says 5 foot 7 inches. Tabercil (talk) 01:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know if you'd consider http://www.celebheights.com/s/Jenna-Jameson-3379.html reliable, but how about your eyes and common sense ? The fact that a woman, who's clearly between 5'3 and 5'5 is claiming 5'7 isn't a reliable source either.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.109.16.167 (talk • contribs) 13:14, April 27, 2010

I would say that is deffinetly a reliable source. That is more like a forum and all of it is purely speculation. If you want to see what others think then you can go to WP:RS noticeboard. Also please sign your posts on talk pages. You can do that by using 4 ~ (~~~~).--NavyBlue84 17:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Broken image

The Jenna Jameson PETA.jpg image is broken, can someone upload a new one? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much all of the PETA images were deleted as it felt that determined that they didn't really intend to release all the rights they did. See here for more. Tabercil (talk) 03:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

former actress?

Jenna is still starring in films.Jenna loves kobe just came out this year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.190.130 (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

"Jenna loves Kobe" is from 2003. Check this: http://www.allsexreviews.com/jenna_loves_kobe.html UltraEdit (talk) 02:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Dead References

Ref 132 and 139 are dead - what to do with these? Testales (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Ref 132 was dead and I have marked as so. Ref 139 is not dead and is legit. Are you sure it was ref 139?--NavyBlue84 20:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

yes, I keep getting an error for 139, the link seems to be wrong anyway, as a closing brace is included but even with it removed this does not work. ref 135 is dead too. Testales (talk) 21:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I checked ref 139 and I am still not having a problem. I did fix the info for it so it looks normal. I did mark ref 135 as dead. Also so you know, when you come accross a dead ref you can use the dead link template. It tells you how to do it there.--NavyBlue84 23:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I found another source for 132 so I swapped that one out. As for 139 (E-Online), it's not dead for me... just really slow loading, and I half-think it's because they have some kind of anti-ad blocking code at work. SO it might not be a bad idea to find a new source for that info as well. Tabercil (talk) 03:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I've now checked the rest too, so here is a complete list of references that have problems or are dead (meaning at least I couldn't load them):

Testales (talk) 18:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions about Jenna Jameson. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.