Over the last week (and for the foreseeable future), I've been devoting a lot of energy to ridding Wikipedia of even a small portion of its enormous over-coverage of topics related to the adult entertainment, ahem, "industry." Earlier today, my efforts yielded their first fruit. I have succeeded in securing the Deletion of two decidedly non-notable adult entertainment performers. Hopefully, I will soon be able to report additional victories in this regard. In the meantime, here are my first two scalps:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veronica_Caine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaura_Eden

You're collecting merkins in your trophy case?

And Wikipedia ensnares yet another victim...

For great justice!

Seriously, the only bigger waste of time I can think of other than being a Wikipedia editor is being a Wikipedia deletionist.

Hardly true! One could waste one's time by constructing 10,000:1 enlarged scale models of one's own belly-button lint, using the same stuff as one's construction material. That would, I believe, constitute a giganormous waste of time, especially supposing one took oneself seriously while doing so.

Phooey, you mean old man! All good-looking lady skin stars are notable! You are no fun!

I am going to get those articles dug up and put on Simple Wikipedia - the kids there need to learn about the birds and the bees, and I'm the horse who can teach that subject!

As I recall, I'm not sure those those two would have particularly qualified under that criterion. I am however, about to Nominate for Deletion a certain "Aja" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aja_(pornographic_actress), whom I do think is rather easy on the eye (despite my long-standing preference for brunettes & redheads). Check out the top-left corner of her pic, Equinus. You just might have a shot with her!

And here I thought Aja was the guitar virtuoso who played with Jem, Kimber and Shana. Childhood memories are ruined.

Horsey like! Horsey like! Now, come on, remove that AfD and let's work that article up to FA status!

Kevin, you woman-hating bastard. Why would you do that?

This is nothing.

I don't see any discussion about this template.
Read the talk page. A classic Commons atrocity.
(Mentioned on Reddit this morning.)

There ya go, Kevin. The perfect template for pornstar BLPs.

I'd like to think this reply is intended as humour, but in the dreary event it is intended sincerely, I can assure you that I do not hate women. On the contrary, my hostility to pornography (and more precisely, the gross over-representation at Wikipedia, of what is an innately trivial topic) stems in no small part from my admiration for women in general (as opposed to the very small and rather pitiful subset of womankind that chooses to engage in acts of prostitution in front of a film crew).

It is true that I have, as yet, only targeted articles about female porn stars for deletion, but that is simply a tactical move on my part, owing to the fact that A) pornographic bio articles are grouped by sex, so its easier to focus on one sex or the other, and B) if I'd started off going after male porn stars, it is very likely I would incur the wrath of the rather well-represented & activist gay community at Wikipedia, and simply put, activist homosexuals are a more formidable and well-organized opposition than the champions of female porn star articles ie., nerds who can't get laid.



I had to check, and now I rather wish I had not....

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Penis

Hey, quiet on the set! We're trying to shoot a movie here, okay? Now, Xeno, in this scene you come home and find Durova lying on the leopard skin sheets covering the heart-shaped bed - she is in her red silk lingerie. You look upwards and say your lines: "Praise be to St. Theresa for hearing my prayers!" Ready everyone? Lights, camera...

Kevin I would really like to shake your hand for this. I made a speciality of targeting 'special interest' groups in the pedophile and 'animal friends' parts of Wikipedia, but never dared take on anything like this.

I would love to support you but as you see it is 'block season' for me, though I am out in a month's time hopefully.

Good luck. I checked out your user page and we should be friends. Perhaps I'm not so far on the right as you claim to be but who cares, you are doing good things. Porn is just sick humiliation and victimisation of women. And like you I am a concerned parent of children who are at a vulnerable age.

Well done sir.

There you go. Horsey kiss. Mwuh, mwuh.

Mmmmm mmmm....Helloooooooooooo Mama!

Good. I didn't know if you liked the kind with horsey heads and woman bodies, or the reverse. Something to be said for both, I suppose.

Found this one in my Barbra Streisand collection.

Hello, gorgeous!

St. Jude for that one.




These are also women. It's not necessary to split woman kind into madonnas or whores.

There are far worse things in this world than sex and the filming of sex. In fact, pretty much all of the bad things are worse. Possibly the worst thing about filming sex for money is the scorn it generates from a subset of people who now feel entitled to look down on you because you have filmed sex for money. Sheesh.

Could you save it for people who drop bombs on other counties for no good reason, or make loans they know can't be repaid, and sell them like hot potatoes to banks who will collect them until they require the taxpayer to bail them out?

Let me paraphase Jefferson, who was talking atheists and polytheists, but can be used for other contexts. Porn stars and prostitutes do me no injury-- they neither break my leg nor pick my pocket. I wish I could say the same about my financial institutions and my government.

I once tried prodding (not a euphemism) a lot of Penthouse Pet of the Month BLP's. Apparently just being a Pet of the month makes you notable, at least according to Wikiproject:Pornlovers, or whatever it's called. I was accused of disruption if memory serves. The moral of the story is "Don't mess with a wikipediots right to fill the 'pedia with porno stubs" Human knowledge, sum of, African children, blah, blah, blah.

Its not a question of some straw man madonna-vs-whore dichotomy. I think most reasonable people regret the extent to which porn has become a part of mainstream American culture, but are disinclined, due to the First Amendment, to support doing anything about it. Fortunately, Wikipedia is not a government agency. It can choose to have higher standards than serving as a repository for the minutiae of the lives of porn stars. I think most reasonable people understand implicitly that the cataloging of such commercialized vice is not the proper role of an encyclopedia.



You're certainly entitled to hold that opinion. I happen to adhere to a different view on that question.



Suffice it to say that my involvement in attempting to suppress the porn fan boi spam at Wikipedia is not the sum total of my activities there. Hell, I've been involved in that activity for less than two weeks, and I continue to work on other things while I direct some of my energies in that direction. In any event, it does seem we share some of the concerns about the larger world's socio-political affairs. For the record, let me make it very clear I always voted against the two Georges Bush, John McCain, and Bob Dole (albeit not for the Democrats since 1992).



A new, stricter version of the WP:Pornbio criteria was issued several months ago; being a Penthouse Pet is no longer sufficient, in and of itself, to establish notability (although being a Playboy Playmate still qualifies, and in fairness, Playboy does play a much larger role in the American socio-cultural consciousness than Penthouse ever has, although its still absurd that all 700 or so women who have ever been a Playboy Playmate are now deemed worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia).

Here is a link to the discussion about the new WP:Pornbio criteria (which are better than the previous set, albeit still woefully too permissive). The discussion about whether the new criteria should be rolled-back to the looser standards of the past, is directly below it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...le)#Porn_Awards

Judging by this edit, it's not a straw man at all.


Replying to a two year old comment with a disparaging and insensitive remark pretty much negates any other justifications you might have, at least in my mind. I guess porn actors fall into the "whore" category?

Why not put them on encyc? Emperor would give you a hug.

Obviously porn star are whores, rather by definition, since they whore themselves out (in the most literal sense), and incidentally allow the proceedings to be filmed. Never-the-less, that doesn't indicate my adherence to a false dichotomy of all women being either-whores-or-madonnas. Most women are neither, just as most men are neither villains nor saints.

I suppose it was a bit rascally of me to suggest the death of that one porn store was an event of little or no social significance (even if that statement is objectively accurate, it is perhaps in poor taste to point it out), but what can I say? I find the porn fan bois on Wikipedia extremely irritating, and I guess I trolled them in that one instance. I suppose I felt it was a little absurd for them to be posting such a seriously worded statement of condolence about the loss of someone who was, for them, nothing more than a stroke-fest fantasy. I still do feel that way, actually. In my opinion, there is something genuinely wrong with a man who forms an emotional attachment to porn stars he's never met. Mocking the grief of such twits may actually be helpful to them, in that it may serve as a reminder that the time is past due for them to grow up.

You have a lot of opinions about porn, but feeling the need to demonstrate how a porn star is literally a whore, and commenting on the fan base, says to me that you have issues that are far deeper than those you try and dissect. I'm all for nuking BLPs, but not because I have an anti-porn agenda -- I'm just tired of shitty bios. I don't know why anyone gives a fuck about who consenting adults fuck, when they fuck, where they fuck, and if they do it for money or not. Who the fuck wants to spend their life worrying about who fucks who and what position they fuck in is beyond me.

Absolutely. How is "a man who forms an emotional attachment to porn stars he's never met" any different from a fan of Mariah Carey, Derek Jeter or Bill O'Reilly, othar than that he's a fan of someone doing something you don't personally like? I think Led Zeppelin sound like cats being toasted, but that doesn't mean that if I go to someone's house and see a "Houses of the Holy" poster on the wall I immediately assume they're in need of psychotherapy.

Which raises the question, who gives a fuck what you think?

Who wants to make a bet that Kev probably has DVDs of "Debbie Does Dallas" stashed in his beard?

Its not so much a question of my personally disliking pornography, so much as it is a question of my being right to dislike pornography. Other people should dislike it, too. I'm not some relativist who's afraid of appearing "judgmental." I can tell the difference between right & wrong, and I don't mind saying so. I know that's not fashionable in the present era, but I'm not particularly enamored with the value systems of the present era, and thus have no great wish to be perceived as in conformity to them.

And of course, whatever one's opinion about pornography, I should think that even people who like it very much ought still never-the-less understand that its not really the sort of information that exists within the best traditions of what ought to constitute an encyclopedia.

Today's essay question, in the spirit of educational discussion:

In Don Quixote, was Dulcinea a "Madonna" or a strumpet? Explain your reasoning.

Extra credit for related literary examples.

Those who truly believe in "the best traditions of what ought to constitute an encyclopedia" have no business contributing to Wikipedia in the first place.

This is why I held back and let you comment for a while before entering the discussion. I'm well on record as opposing Wikipedia irresponsible hosting pornography while providing no child protective matters at all. The concern is first for children and their parents, then for those exploited and demeaned by pornography (mostly women, including the workers in the industry.) This has nothing to do with those workers being "whores." You have now lost you pet role as the site's most reasonable fascist. Thanks for showing your misogny relatively early on.

Since the only other one I can think of is Lolwut, I think Kevin still wins by default.

Well.... to be fair, I'd have to say that Mr. O'Keefe is probably a "misogynist" only from the progressive/liberal perspective, which tends to include a wider definition of personal freedom and responsibility than the social-conservative perspective. I don't think it's unreasonable to view porn actresses as either victims of a corrupt media-driven social system, or even as opportunistic money-grabbers, shameless or otherwise. "Whores" is a loaded word, of course, and it would be better not to use it, but IMO it doesn't really become misogyny until you start making assumptions about tendencies towards evil vs. good, or start claiming that women are "morally weak" and gravitate to these kinds of things as part of their basic nature, etc., etc. (Unless you just hate women in general, of course.)

I'd also agree that traditional standards of coverage for an encyclopedia are faaaaarrrrr better than Wikipedia's in this particular regard. Nevertheless, I'd also have to say that most of these porn-star bios are relatively harmless, as long as they're not too explicit in themselves, and the porn-star in question wants them (which, I'd imagine, is usually the case). The Aja bio doesn't even give her real name, at least not at the moment.

And of course, this is actually a good example of where a BLP opt-out policy would be ideal, since it would give the porn-stars themselves a chance to (at least partially) clean the slate if they ever decide to leave the industry.

I don't think Kevin would quite agree with you on the opt-out policy:

I doubt that whores are the only people Kevin hates. See his comments at [[Talk:Kevin Alfred Strom]]...

How is it "misogynist" to note the simple fact that women who engage in sex for money are, by definition, whores, irrespective of whether they compound their whoring by allowing it to be filmed? I can assure you, my opinion of the male whores who perform in pornographic films is just as low, if not actually lower, than my opinion of the female whores similarly engaged. Most pornography is pretty much the ultimate media expression of misogyny, for that matter, silly "New Wave Feminist" cockamamie drivel to the contrary not-withstanding.

I try to refrain from hating anyone, but in those particular circumstances where I fail in that endeavour, I reserve my hatred for specific individuals, not entire classes of people. The statement I hate "women" is remarkably silly. On right-wing boards where I participate in discussions of socio-political issues, I am frequently derided as "a fag" for my refusal to go along with an often predominantly misogynist ethos, where I constantly point out the Boobus Americanus male leaves even more to be desired than his female counterpart.

I suspect that we might actually agree on some of the ill effects of pornography on the collective psyche. We clearly differ in how we view the people who are involved in it or in prostitution.



So you hate all whores individually?

Hey, you're this Kevin O'Keefe, aren't you?
Full article here

Good luck in the WMF Trustee election!

There are a lot of Kevin O'Keeffes in the world, no doubt.

If this is the same one, OTH, he'd pick up the WP skinhead vote, but probably lose the WP Jewish vote.

I've been trying to guess here how this would go...

Yikes.

Golly!

Well, if it is him, at least he doesn't seem to be singling out Jewish porn actresses. That might tend to suggest he's grown up a bit in the last ten years or so...

Are you?

My feelings with regard to individual whores seldom rises to the intensity of hatred. I seldom know enough about them to know whether pity, aloof disdain, or frothing hatred is the correct response; I'm sure all three have their place in various individual instances. I do hate the idea of someone becoming a whore, however. Even in instances where it makes sense for them to do so ie., in order to avoid starvation in a war zone, say, its still very regrettable that such things occur.

They have the same middle name and, as has been pointed out here already, "our" Kevin believes that "anti-semitism is part and parcel to informed patriotism". So I'm thinking yes.

What can I say? During the 1990s, I was a pretty disturbed guy, due at least in part to a lifelong, untreated case of Bipolar Disorder, and I did a stupid, fucked-up thing. While I may adhere to a number of controversial socio-political notions (although there's probably more of Ignatius J. Riley in me than Julius Streicher), I do not actually hate people based solely on their membership in a particular racial, ethnic, and/or religious class. And like many people, that has not always been true about me. Unlike most other people who used to hate people on the basis of such criteria, I have the unfortunate burden of an evidentiary paper trail, cataloging my past foolishness in the local newspapers. Whereas most people simply have the luxury of lying about their past idiocy, if they are so inclined. And while I no longer hate people for being Jewish, I did not subsequently decide it was a good idea to become an adherent to orthodox socio-political thought. When I became a National Socialist ("Nazi") in 1996, I did so because of my awareness that this society is on an extremely deleterious trajectory. I don't think that has changed; we are still plunging towards an abyss. I simply don't think targeting people on the basis of their demographic make-up is a very good way to avert the disasters which surely await the USA in the decades to come, if our national trajectory is not altered.

Unfortunately some stupid, fucked-up things are harder to erase when it comes to pressing the 'reset' button. I appreciate your honest and candid response though.



I'm with you there.

Nobody responded to my suggestion to examine the case of Dulcinea, the fictional heroine of Don Quixote. Her character is an iconic example of the dilemma which Kevin contemplates above.

But perhaps a more fascinating case would be Sabina Spielrein, a real person whose story is even more interesting than that of the fictional Dulcinea.

When Carl Jung was just starting his career under the supervision of Eugen Bleuler, Spielrein was his first patient. She was a teenager whom he diagnosed and treated for hysteria. Spielrein stayed on at the clinic and became Jung's assistant and lover. Their dalliance became a scandal that came to the attention of both Freud and Bleuler, leading to the dismissal of Jung from his position at Bleuler's clinic.

Spielrein stayed on to study under Bleuler and then launched her own career in psychotherapy. Her first client was Jean Piaget, with whom she subsequently collaborated and published pathbreaking papers on Autism.

The diagnosis of Autism originated when Bleuler and Freud first discussed such cases. Bleuler proposed to call the diagnosis "ipsism". Freud proposed calling it "autoerotism". Bleuler decided to elide the express reference to erotic self-stimulation, and shortened the name to autism. That was around 1912, when Spielrein was still studying under Bleuler after her dalliance with Jung.

So, what does this have to do with sex for sale?

Think about it. Where is one's source of sexual gratification? Erotic self-stimulation? From a "hired-hand"? From a lover? From a spouse? From printed or online pornography or japornimation?

The prostitute with a heart of gold is something of a literary cliche. Having a "heart of gold" is a synonym for having empathy for others. Autism, on the other hand, is a diagnosis in which the absence of empathy is a defining characteristic. So how does one convey empathy to someone who is 1) desperately lacking in sources of sexual gratification and 2) very much in need of exemplars in empathy?

Enter the role of the sex worker. Is a sex worker a despicable harlot or a praiseworthy therapist?

Deciding whether to curse with contempt or praise with respect is clearly a significant emotional choice.

But emotional choices are often ill-informed choices.

If you study the biography of Sabina Speilrein, you might come away with a more mature perspective on a subtle and complex issue — one that perplexed and confounded Freud, Jung, Bleuler, and Piaget.

By the way, her surname means "fair play".

It's ironic, because Spielrein's life was anything but fair.

Your hate directed toward the JCC was 1999 and at that time you immediately tried to tender an "apology" which your victims found self-serving and insincere. Maybe not so much has changed.

Why was this do you think?