Talk:Jenna Haze/Archive 1

Archive 1

Sexual Orientation

For the longest time the info box was bisexual and then all of a sudden there's this revert war that she's heterosexual. The question should not be where is the proof that she's bi but where's the proof that she's hetero? Even before she got into the industry she claimed she was bi. Keep on removing the sexual orientation and I'll keep on reverting it. --Dysepsion 15:15, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

As for the proof? Here it is: [[1]] --Dysepsion 16:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC) Another question wat is here Ethnicity? First it was Spanish and German now she is Japanese and white. The name Corrales sounds like spanish... She also not look like a Japanese....

You are correct. There is a lot of clearly faulty info floating around, unfortunately. Not only does she not look part Japanese, her bio still listed at Jill Kelly Production's website backs up that she is a mix of German and Spanish (as well as Irish).

Additionally, Jenna's correct height, weight, and measurements (5'2", 92lbs, 32-22-32) are available on her own website. Regarding her first porn scene, in the "about me" section of her website she mentions Oral Adventures of Craven Moorehead 8 as her first, and in the Q and A section she lists Service Animals 4. Given the production date I found listed on the boxcover of Oral Adventures, and the date given by another member for Service Animals, it appears they were both shot on the same day. --Alsayid 04:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I interviewed (partially out of boredom) Jenna two months ago and asked her about the first movie conflict. If anybody thinks any info in the interview is useful and reliable, feel free to cite to it. It's a conflict of interest for me. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

DVD box covers

rm boxcovers (cannot claim fair use due to revised guidelines) --Joe Beaudoin Jr.

Can someone explain this to me; as long as we use thumbnails it ok, correct?

Unfortunately, this is not the case. Here's the line from WP:FU: "Cover art. Cover art from various items, for identification and critical commentary (not for identification without critical commentary)." Since we're not giving critical commentary for those videos, we need to remove them. Questions, comments or concerns? -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 18:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I just needed clarification --vossman 04:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

No problem. Glad that you brought it up -- and as equally glad to clarify for you! -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 05:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Jenna's official fanclub

The guidelines state that it's appropriate to have a link to a fan site, and since http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Jenna_Haze has long been her official fanclub (where she posts), I think that one should stay. --Alsayid 05:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I wasn't sure about that, since it only said "Jenna Haze Fan Club" (it didn't mention anything about officiality, whatsoever). So, if it is official, then reinstate the link. Thanks, Alsayid. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 15:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding "jennahazefan.com" website

To whomever is adding this link to the External links section, please do not do so. It has no pertinence in the external link section, as it is neither official nor is it a resource this article uses. If anyone sees it, the link is to be removed on sight and the user(s) in question notified about WP:NOT and WP:EL. Thank you. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 15:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Why was the interracial part edited out

When a porn actress does her first interracial scene after several years in the business it's a monumental moment. I don't understand why it was edited out, since it's quite notable. The fact that Jenna Haze returned to do boy/girl scenes for the first time in several years, is trumped by the fact that it's her first interracial scene ever. While it is notable that she's returning to do boy/girl scenes, it's not as big of a deal since she's already done them dozens of times. It's also annoying that not only was the mention of her first interracial scene edited out, but the name of the movie itself(Jenna Haze: Darkside)was edited so there's no frame of reference to the remaining portion which states that she's done her first boy/girl scene in years. Whomever edited this stuff out has done us a disservice, and I believe the page should be reverted back to what it was before they so badly edited it.Aoa8212 22:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• What I find curious is why it ought to matter at all? If you were to look back in ten years, would the fact that Jenna's first interracial scene was so long coming count for anything? Because that long term perspective is how I feel one should approach making edits to the artilcles - ignore the mundane cruft and focus on the larger picture. The fact that she returned to doing boy/girl after severals years would be notable at that point... the fact that it's also with a black male probably won't be. Tabercil 00:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, especially since that's only one of several scenes she does in the movie. --Alsayid 00:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, guys, can you not understand that Jenna has already done boy/girl scenes so seeing her do them again is not such a surprise. However when an actress has a policy of not doing interracial scenes at all and then she suddenly does one it causes a sensation, and there's speculation if it's a one-time deal or if it will become standard practice. Obviously if an actress has always done IR scenes than it's not as big of a deal.

The best analogy I can come up with is when Michael Jackson performed at the Motown 25th anniversary special. It was and is notable because MJ first performed his signature Moonwalker dance on this show, not because it was MJ's first TV performance in years. Similarly Jenna Haze's Darkside movie is notable because it contains her first and perhaps her only scene with a black male actor. All the other sex acts she performs with white actors, she has already done several times before in her movies. I truly think that the page should be reverted back to reflect that.Aoa8212 10:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to offer a couple of counter points. The first is that Jenna didn't have a verifiable policy of not doing black guys. If she'd never done an Asian guy before, that wouldn't mean she had a policy of not doing Asian guys. The second is that we shouldn't be speculating on what kind of scenes she will or won't be doing in the future. We really need to keep in mind Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. --Alsayid 19:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Black male actors are frequently used in American pornography, Asian males are not. Therefore if an actress has never performed with an Asian male actor, it is most likely due to demographics, rather than a personal policy of not doing Asian men. The same cannot be said for black men. I don't see why we have to be so PC that we can't mention that the IR scene which is a first for Jenna is causing a buzz. As long as the editing is not done in a way which denigrates or stereotypes a group of people, I don't see what's wrong with telling it like it is.Aoa8212 14:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

You missed my point. It's not up to you to decide that Jenna had a "policy" of not doing black guys, whether you believe it or not. On a blog or in a chatroom that's fine, but shouldn't be used as a rationale here. --Alsayid 20:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Jenna Haze did have a policy of never doing interracial scenes of which she was heavily criticized for a couple years back. There was an interview on it somewhere that wasn't on a blog or chatroom but a "reputable" website within the industry(if you can call it that). When she finally did do an interracial scene, it was big news in the adult industry. Refusal to do interracial scenes by bigger name porn stars are notable. Controversy surrounding interracial scenes can be seen in other articles of actresses such as Taylor Rain and Jessica Darlin. Whether or not it's included I don't really care. But it just seems that there seems to be a double standard surround this article. Just my two cents. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 20:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but she didn't have a verified policy against doing interracial scenes. She has said she'd have no problem doing an interracial scene with someone she found attractive, which apparently has happened. No big deal there. --Alsayid 22:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

So explain why "interracial scenes" are mentioned in the examples above and not this one and I actually was not referring to the interview which is posted on the lukeisback.com website. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 22:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that those pornstars have said openly that they don't approve of interracial scenes at all. Jenna hasn't (I wasn't reffering to LukeIsBack, either), and it's their opinions against interracial that are included in those articles. But beyond that, the Jenna article seems to be better written in general, IMO. --Alsayid 00:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. The reason why I chimed in is that I understand Aoa8212's argument. For an actress who's done nearly 300 scenes according to IAFD and she's done only one interacial scene seems more notable or in the same league as her getting back to b/g scenes. If a statement in an article remains for several months and all of a sudden it is removed without explanation, I understand why it would raise a few eyebrows. I also found it very suspicious that it was removed by an anon user whose sole edit on here is the removal of that statement. It makes one wonder if it may have been vandalism? [2] In the future if someone happens to re-add her interracial scene, the best course of action would be to discuss it here on the talk page and come up with a consensus again instead of going back to a revert war. But like I said, I don't care either way. As a fan, I'm just glad she's going back to b/g scenes. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 02:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

In the article one of the references listed is here interview at RogReviews, if you read that interview you'll not her reasoning behind not doing interracial was that she had as of yet not found a black pornstar she was atracted to physically, if she met one, then she'd be happy to do a scene: "If I found a guy I was attracted to, no matter what his race, I would do a scene with him." For this reason, I think the fact that it's her first BoyGirl scene is more important then her first interracial. She never had a specific no interracial policy, where as it is a policy change to start doing scenes with males again. Riphal 00:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC) Riphal

Whether or not she had an official policy of not doing scenes with black actors is irrelevant. The fact remains that she had never done a scene with a black actor up until Darkside. That is a fact and it is notable even more than her returning to do boy-girl scenes, because she's already done over a hundred boy-girl scenes. Why not give readers of the article that knowledge?, why the need to censor it out because it supposedly violates some politically correct racial taboo?. If someone edits the page to say that she's a racist because she didn't do scenes with black actors in the past, or that she shouldn't do scenes with black actors, then by all means it should be changed to reflect a NPOV. However, Wikipedia is not supposed to be for editing out factual info which happens to offend your sensibilities. Aoa8212 23:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Dead?

Why does it say she died on 4 July 2006? More vandalism?

She did die I'm sorry guys I didn't read the article yet

Any links to her death?Tanner65 08:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

She's not dead. It's vandalism --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 16:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Haley Paige is the porn star who recently was found dead —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.171.81 (talk) 20:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

External links

I've once again removed the "external links" section for reasons (from WP:EL) already noted in the edit summaries. Just for clarity, I'm going to add those reasons here.

The Official Site does not belong in this section because it already exists in the infobox.

The other two links (one to myspace and one to yahoo groups) are inappropriate because they are social networking sites and forums. Valrith 01:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Links to MySpace and Yahoo Group are not inappropriate: they are just links normally to be avoided, but not inappropriate. They must be used when they have relevant content that is of substantially higher quality than that available from any other website. And here, in both cases, these pages not only fit with this statement, they have relevant content about Jenna Haze really hard or even impossible to find in other websites.

The Jenna Haze MySpace page has relevant information about her, so it is important put an external link to this site.

It is appropriate to have a link to a fan site. The Yahoo Group is her Official Fanclub, where she posts, so it must be a link to her Official Fanclub in Yahoo Group in the External Links section.

Purplehayes2006 02:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:EL specifically states that sites requiring registration are of limited use to most readers. Yahoo requires registration for this group because it is age restricted. While Wikipedia is not censored, this site clearly should be avoided because of the registration. Betacommand has a good handle on sites meeting WP:EL. I do not expect to see this one linked again. Morenooso 01:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yahoo Groups are sites NORMALLY to be avoided, it is not prohibited their use. As guidelines say, if the content of that page is relevant and difficult to find in other sites, then it is appropriate its use. It is obvious that the content in that Yahoo site is absolutely relevant and really hard or even impossible to find in other sites. Besides, in the same way, the guidelines say that it is appropriate include a link to a major fansite, and that Yahoo Group is her OFFICIAL Fan Club, where Jenna Haze posts. It is an Official page about the subject of this article: Jenna Haze.Purplehayes2006 14:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yahoo Groups not only requires registration, but is an open forum. It contains nothing a properly written "Good Article" will have. Yahoo Groups cannot be an official anything, and is entirely inappropriate to link to. Valrith 22:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but it is the Official Jenna Haze Fan Club; I don't understand your tone; tell me, did you read all the posts there written? can you tell me that the info exposed there every week is not relevant? do you know that Jenna Haze herself writes there? that it is Jenna Haze herself who says that it is her Official Fan Club?. Include one link to a major fan site is appropriate WP:NOT. This is her Official Fan Club and her major fan site, you like it or not; Jenna Haze is posting there since 2002. A link to a Yahoo Group normally is avoided, but if it is a major fan site, and it is a site with relevant info, then we can link to that site. That's the key. There is relevant info in that site about Jenna Haze, including info written by Jenna Haze herself, and it is her Official Fan Club; so it is allowed and appropriate have a link to that Yahoo Group: her Official Fan Club. Purplehayes2006 23:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion Summary: Do include Myspace, don't include Yahoo groups. Remove the Google video.

• Yahoo groups requires registration before any viewing at all can be done. This is just plain bad, so it should be removed.
• Myspace is a kind of 'official website' with the lack of any other. Keep it. Does not require registration and is informative about the person in question (which is the goal of an external link - further reading!)
• The Google video is just an interview. One cannot list this video but not list all other interviews and features. Remove it it, except when using it as a source - it should be moved to references then.

--User:Krator (t c) 22:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

• Generally speaking, an official site is appropriate for the external links section, regardless of whether or not it's in the infobox. Many people (including myself) scroll down to the external links to find official site information.
• However, I agree with deleting the MySpace and yahoo groups link. If (and only if) the MySpace link is a bona-fide official resource, keep it. Otherwise delete it. Also we shouldn't be linking to places that require a login account. On the other hand, I have seen other external links requiring login pass muster without complaint from other editors, as long as a note ("requires login") is present on the link description.
• I agree with above, remove the google video.
• I notice also that some awards were reverted as being "invalid". I think awards from the same page should be listed in one line, but not removed. If the cited source is reliable (and in this genre, the one cited looks OK), then sourced facts shouldn't be removed from an article.

That's my opinion. -Amatulic 22:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Awards won by a film do not belong in an article about actors in that film (compare with the Awards section for cf. Elijah Wood; he starred in the film The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, which won Best Picture, but it is (appropriately) not included in the list of awards he has won.) Valrith 04:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Different standards are applied for pornographic actors regarding their notability compared to mainstream actors. Maybe its a stretch, but perhaps this suggests awards won and where they are included do not necessarily correlate to where they are included or not with their Hollywood counterparts. I am not taking a side on this and really don't care much, but I do think this is a valid point. With a major film, the film itself is notable, but with pornographic films, many, maybe most, are not notable, while the actors in them may actually be notable. So if a film won awards, but that film does not warrent inclusion in wikipedia, but an actor who was in it does warrant inclusion, perhaps those awards do deserve mention in the actors article? Russeasby 04:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

A film an actor was in might deserve, as you say, mention in the actor's article, but it should still not be found in a list of awards _won by the actor_. Valrith 03:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Jenna Haze Darkside IS her movie. But I think that it is a good idea put the achievements for this movie in a different place than the "Awards" Jenna section. Anyway, it is important reflect the Awards for this movie, for the great importance that this movie has; for that I've create a section with this intention.Purplehayes2006 14:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Another third opinion

• I agree completely that general myspace links should be avoided. But in the case of a living person who keeps a myspace page I think it is acceptable in some cases. For instance here, she does not seem to have her own official website (which would certainly warrent inclusion), lacking an official site her myspace page seems to serve that purpose for her and should be kept.
• The yahoo groups, generally linking to discussion forums is basically a no go, plus the need for registration is an issue as well. The fact she is active in responding there though does make me wonder if it is perhaps worthwhile in including, does she actually run it, or an agent or official representative of hers run it? Those would indeed be arguments in favor of including it, if it does indeed have some "official" purpose. But did not and have no plans to join it to find out for myself. I lean towards not including it though.

Yahoo Groups are sites normally to be avoided, not prohibited. As guidelines say, if the content of that page is relevant and difficult to find in other sites, then it is appropriate its use. And in this case fits with that statement. Besides, in the same way, the guidelines say that it is appropriate include a link to a major fansite, and that Yahoo Group is her OFFICIAL Fan Club, where Jenna Haze posts. It is an Official page about the subject of this article: Jenna Haze.Purplehayes2006 00:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• The video links I see no basis for keeping, unless they are used as a citation for something in the article.

Russeasby 02:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, updates to my opinion. I see now she does indeed have an official site, it just oddly was not in the external links section. And I see the argument about that now (had seen it before but got sidetracked and forgot about it). Given this I see no good argument for keeping either myspace or yahoo links (though myspace is borderline still and I would be neautral on it). But the office site most certainly should be moved to the external links section, in addition to the other links in the info box. I strongly suggest removing them from the info box and adding them to the External Links section. Or if you absolutely have to have them in both places, thats okay, but either way they should be in the external links section per common practice. Russeasby 02:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I have written already about why the Yahoo Group link should be in External section. About the MySpace link, I will say that it is a link normally to be avoided, but not inappropriate. It must be used when they have relevant content that is of substantially higher quality than that available from any other website. And here, this page, and the page in Yahoo Group (her Official FanClub) not only fit with this statement, they have relevant content about Jenna Haze really hard or even impossible to find in other websites.Purplehayes2006 00:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You should think that they are links normally to be avoided BUT not inappropriate. It is not prohibited their use. Indeed we MUST use them in this case for all what I said before, and what I said is just what guidelines state.Purplehayes2006 00:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The argument that the Myspace should be included is not a valid one. It does not matter if it the official Jenna Haze Myspace page and that she posts there. Just about everyone who has a Myspace posts there, there is nothing different about her Myspace. Your argument could be made about any Myspace page; it fits into the general rule of being unacceptable. The Myspace link is just self promotion and spam. It is not used as a source in the article. It would only be acceptable to use the Myspace if Haze was responding to a notable event that she was involved with and it was sourced in the article. Sources should be reliable and independent, which a fan group, official or not, is not. The only reason the Yahoo group should be on is if it also directly sourced in the article. Idioma 03:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines states that it is appropriate include a link to a major fansite, and that Yahoo Group is her OFFICIAL Fan Club. The link to her MySpace must be included too because is a source that gives information about herself, relevant information about Miss Haze, the subject of this article, including events where she was or where she is involved. I will not repeat all said before, it is something already discussed, and you should respect all that was discussed before when even third opinions were given. Purplehayes2006 11:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

A question

Doesn't she look like Gwen Stefani?

No. You're probably looking at pictures where they have similiar makeup application. 67.121.114.110 23:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment: External links and awards

Previously, a third opinion was requested for the content dispute between User:Valrith and User:Purplehayes2006. Those opinions were posted and still the revert war between the two editors continues. Dismas|^(talk) 03:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me do a rough summary of the opinions and third opinions about the External links:

• Valrith: remove official site (as redundant to infobox), myspace, yahoo group (per WP:EL)
• Purplehayes2006: keep myspace, yahoo group, official per WP:EL
• Morenooso: remove yahoo group because it requires registration
• Krator: Do include Myspace, don't include Yahoo group.
• Amatulic: keep official site even if redundant, delete yahoo group, delete myspace unless proven official
• Russeasby: keep official site (possibly remove from infobox), remove yahoo group, borderline on myspace

It seems there's a consensus to remove the Yahoo group, keep the myspace, assuming it can be proven official, and to keep the official site, even if it's redundant with the infobox. It seems the "officialness" of the sites is the major issue, which is in accordance with Wikipedia:External links. It also does seem like a lot of opinions have been gathered, and it is time to make a decision. But let me ask one more question:

Purplehayes2006, what makes you think the myspace and yahoo group sites are "official"? Is there a place on the official site that links to them and says they are also official? Is there any other reliable source that says they are official? See, on http://www.jennahaze.com/bonus.php I instead see "This is the one and only site dedicated to Jenna Haze ..." which rather implies the others aren't official. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

http://www.jennahaze.com is the official website of Jenna Haze... but she can has other official sites of different kind: a MySpace page, a Fan Club, etc.

• http://www.myspace.com/jennahaze: it is Jenna Haze site in MySpace (she runs PERSONALLY that page). She even has 2 pictures to proof that it is her site; to see those pictures you must be logged. That is enough proof that it is her site in MySpace, but if you read in her Yahoo Group (her Fan Club) you would know this from Jenna herself. Another proof: ANV.com article. There are more articles in AVN.com stating that this is Jenna's MySpace. Jenna saying that http://www.myspace.com/jennahaze is her MySpace: http://qlimax.com/jenna-haze.php.
• http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Jenna_Haze: this Yahoo Group is her official Fan Club where she posts; it is her major fan site since 2002, and it is fair put a link to a major Fan site, and more if she posts there as it is in this case. The registration process is free, and the use of links to Yahoo Groups is something that it is not prohibited by guidelines; usually avoided, but necessary their use in cases like this for what I said above. Besides, Jenna Haze has this link in her MySpace page: Jenna Haze Official Fan Club @ Yahoo Groups
• I agree in put the link to http://www.jennahaze.com in the External Links section and keep it in the infobox too.Purplehayes2006 13:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Ending external link edit war

All right. As an uninvolved admin, I want to put a stop to the edit war, which may be slow motion, but does seem to be both persistent and ongoing. We've heard multiple opinions, summarized above, but apparently people aren't listening to each other, and this isn't going to stop without administrative action. Therefore, this is that action. I will also notify the most active edit warriors on their talk pages, and if they continue to war over this topic, will move to an escalating series of blocks.

The rule in question is Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided which starts "Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid:" and then goes on to "... 10. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET." So:

• The Myspace page http://www.myspace.com/jennahaze seems proven "official" by the AVN article-cum-press-release. Also consensus (above) seems to be for it. So the Myspace link is appropriate, and should be kept.
• I went to the Myspace page and could not find a link to the Yahoo group. I searched both the front page, and "all blog posts", for either "fan club" and "Yahoo". So that's not clear, and consensus (above) seems to be against it. So until further evidence of "officialness" is shown, it should be removed.

  there is a banner in her "About me" section that says: "Click Here To Join The Official Jenna Haze Fan Club @ Yahoo Groups", and of course, that links to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Jenna_Haze. So, can I add the link to her Fan Club @ Yahoo Groups in the External Links section?. Purplehayes2006 13:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

  Ah, it's a graphic, so didn't show up in the search. But a darn prominent graphic, so I don't know why I didn't see it. Did I mention I was blind as a bat? AnonEBat? All right, keep it. Let me do it as a stamp of approval or something. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• The additional link to the official site fortunately seems to be outside the scope of the edit war, so won't be a subject of this decision.

* The fact that each "side" seems to have "won" one point ... is not a factor :-) in this decision, which is based on guideline and consensus.

• User:Purplehayes2006, User:Valrith, User:J. Ponder notified, but the comments apply to others as well. If you want to try to convince each other, please do, but until new evidence comes up, a new consensus is formed, or the situation otherwise changes, these two links should not be edit warred over any more.

Writing as a Wikipedia:Administrator, AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 12:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Sexual acts performed

As this edit says: diff, the link is indeed valid! Did Valrith check the link before removing it? Or does s/he only wish to revert. And I had too improved the reference, because it only had an initial, and I improved by actually putting in the relevant reference. Didn't have any link at all before. Mathmo ^Talk 23:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

IAFD is an anonymously edited database, therefore it can't be used as a reference for anything controversial. Valrith seems to think that the information you're putting in is controversial, and needs a better reference. Wikipedia:Verifiability explains about good and bad references. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 12:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Valrith could explain what controversial there is in name the sexual acts that Jenna Haze does in her movies. IAFD is possibly the best porn database in the net, with a great reputation, widly well known, with even it own consult section in ADT. People in IAFD do a good work. Seriously, seems that Valrith is sometimes looking for controversial where there is nothing, cuestioning the most simple things... besides, I wonder when he contributes with a source. Purplehayes2006 17:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Ehh. Look, either the claim is that these acts are at least a little unusual enough among porn actresses, in which case they could be seen as controversial, or they're not at all unusual, in which case, what is interesting about them and why should they be added? How about finding better references, instead? A magazine interview where she says she does X and Y? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll second all of that. None of these things are either unique or notable, they're not well sourced, and they don't (imo) contribute anything to the article. I'll disagree with AnonEMouse slightly in that I don't think an interview with a porn star saying she performs fellatio makes the act notable enough to include a paragraph on it in her article, however. Valrith 21:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, let me rephrase that. Find an article where it says that she is one of the few performers who will do X, or is famous for doing Y, or Z is her trademark move. As an example, almost everyone has eyes, but Bette Davis's eyes are quite notable, and mentioned all over that featured article. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that can be interesting to mention the different sexual acts that a porn actress performs in her movies. It is relevant in her work. And Valrith, look: in the IAFD list there is a column named NOTES explaining the different sexual acts that the actress performs in each movie. It is not just a list of movies. And Valrith, no matters what sexual acts you think are "notable" or not... and in this case you are really wrong. AnonEMouse, for that I am putting again the paragraph in the article, and because I hope you reconsider that the different sexual acts that an actress performs in her movies are something totally relevant in her work and career. I also see interesting look for some article where be mentioned Jenna Haze lengedary blowjob (the hand-and-blowjob together which is one of her signature moves), her enthusiastic performances, her anal sex... all things for what she is famous for doing. And yes, she also has amazing eyes and it is famous for that :-).Purplehayes2006 00:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It is curious... user Redelrops edited the article just a few before me... so I am not editing it this time :-)Purplehayes2006 00:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

And I'm about to remove it again. Take a look at the Jenna Jameson article. It only mentions actual sex acts very briefly, and the ones it mentions are sourced to reliable sources and connected by (at least) claims of uniqueness/importance. They also constitute a very small percentage of the article (see Undue weight). Valrith 12:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Come on, folks. Going back and forth like this isn't getting anywhere. Discuss, don't edit war. It's getting to where I'm thinking about using admin tools. Purplehayes and Redeldrops and Mathmo: find a verifiable source that isn't just an anonymous database or fan site, that says this is in some way distinctive, or important to her career, or otherwise notable, and isn't just another thing that hundreds just like her do all the time. Then we can discuss it with Valrith, and I promise, I'll lean on him too; it doesn't have to be the New York Times, a Playboy article would be fine, but right now you aren't meeting him anywhere close to half way. I'm also changing this section title, because this is about the article, not about the editors. Yet. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 12:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

First of: I am not here to "warring" or be any kind of "winner" in any discussion. Those are concepts really far from my way. I am here to try to improve the article in the way that I can. Second: it is Valrith who makes and edit (a deletion, of course), and when someone restore the content and go to start a discussion... he comes to make his deletion again without finish any discussion or even let people express their opinions. With that said, I will add that the fact of looking for a source and "Then we can discuss it with Valrith"... doesn't sound very estimulating. Sounds like whatever you do NEEDS his approval... and as if he has a negative predisposition about it. Valrith, I would really like and appreciate if you look for a source in this case, not just "deleting & run". Please, change your "modus operandi"... it is not encouraging to anyone. Another thing: state Jenna Jameson as an example of sexual acts with some kind of uniqueness/importance performed by a porn actress... it is ridiculous. For sure in that article the different sexual acts are going to be mentioned very briefly. Ok, about sexual acts, maybe you can say that many porn actress do anal sex (not Jenna Jameson), for example, but Jenna Haze is very well known for her anal sex scenes, she has earned special attention for it, and it is something distinctive in her career and in the Industry. No less distinctive is the hand-and-blowjob together which is one of her signature moves and she is well know for it too; and her sensual voice and enthusiastic performances. Some examples of something distinctive and/or relevant about her work and career. One more time, any help in find an article/source related to all this, and of course, in to write in a good way the new content to the article, is welcome. And Valrith, don't take my comments in a bad way... I don't have anything against you; it is just I would really like some searching/help/contribution from you... not just a deletion.Purplehayes2006 14:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with Purplehayes2006's comments. Consensus here appears to be against Valrith, should be up to him/her to provide a better alternative (not those s/he is disagreeing with). Likewise I also would really like to see a change in Valrith's modus operandi of "deleting and running". Always seems to be removing content, can't recall ever seeing anything being added to an article recently. Mathmo ^Talk 00:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Folks, don't make this about an editor. Let's keep this about the article. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I would rather not, but when the problems of many articles on wikipedia and the editor become intertwined you have to face ways to improve this dimension of the article as well. This has been extensive and long running behavior. Mathmo ^Talk 02:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Folks, I'm in agreement with Valrith on the chunk of text in question. Referring to an anonymously edited database is not sufficient. You need to find a specific reference beyond IAFD for what you're trying to say, just as AnonEMouse said up top: "Find an article where it says that she is one of the few performers who will do X, or is famous for doing Y, or Z is her trademark move." If you can find that, fine, the text stays; otherwise I feel that the text in question should be pulled out. And let me remind all parties involved in this here dispute: AnonEMouse and myself are both admins, so we have the power to back-up our suggestions (though we'd rather everyone come to an amicable solution first)... Tabercil 05:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

How is Adult Movie Web Database not considered spam? How are they any different than any other thumbnail gallery post like LatinBabeIndex or link listing like Freeones? Just because they have "database in their name and sound official makes them "non-spam"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.32.143.217 (talk) 00:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 17:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit war

There seems to be an edit war brewing here over the validity of Jenna Haze's alleged true name. I encourage editors to discuss the issue on the talk page before undergoing any edits, otherwise I (or another admin) may have to lock down the article temporarily to prevent disruption. Thank you! -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 16:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'm looking at the article which serves as a source for her name and it looks like the author obviously spoke with either Jenna or someone who clearly knew her: he makes reference to her being a former waitress at Marie Callender. A quick search of Google comes up with only two useful hits for the phrase "Marie Callender" and "Jenna Haze": the OC Weekly article itself and Jenna's IMDB entry (which probably took the info from the OC article). Tabercil 17:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • First off, while the validity of that source is discussed, the entry for Jenna's true name must be deleted. I think that to state something as relevant as her real name it should be used a really good source, and not a poorly written "article" by an author that don't even know when Jenna Haze started her career (he states 2002, and it is 2001). The author doesn't show any proof about Jenna Haze's true name, and suppositions (about if he talked or not with someone that know Jenna Haze) don't make valid anything. We need proofs. An interview to Jenna Haze where she states her real name or and article from someone that contribute with some proof, like an article in AVN.com, would be OK. Proofs, not rumors, gossips or speculations.Purplehayes2006 20:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Ironically, I think he may have gotten her name from the Wikipedia article.Vinh1313 20:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

That's true, and make no sense to put his article as the source of Jenna Haze's real name. Just read the entry "Editor responds" here: http://www.ocweekly.com/letters/letters/letters/24607/. It is better look for a different source; and for now Jenna Haze's real name entry must be deleted. Purplehayes2006 21:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • Looks like the citation was circular then. It shows the damage that is done when wikipedia posts the birth name unverified. Everyone else starts repeating it. We have a pandora's box.Vinh1313 21:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

And I find interesting the last couple of sentences of the Editor responds note that PurpleHayes2006 points out: "In fact, Jenna’s own people didn’t have a problem with it. Her agent even e-mailed us after the story ran and requested additional copies." But yeah, it looks like the info is basically unclean. Tabercil 05:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking about that same thing - I don't think we can take their non-objection as verification. For example, if the name is bogus, they would not complain if they want Ms. Haze to remain anonymous. I think we have to remove this info as unsourced for now. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 05:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Tabercil 15:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Wonderful! Thank you! -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 17:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: edit summary [3]

This should be rewritten. It reads like a fansite. Please discuss. - ∅ (∅), 04:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• About the Manual of Style template, I did remove slang used in the article after user Eulerskunk put the template. That slang used in the article was my bad. The text uses a "simple" language style, but in a consistent manner, which is fair and it is the style used during the full history of this article, and the original text for quotes has been respected, so that template shouldn't be put. At the beginning of the Manual of Style: "If an article has been stable in a given style, it should not be converted without a reason that goes beyond mere choice of style. When it is unclear whether an article has been stable, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." Anyway, please feel free to give reasons for a change in the style of this article. And of course, ifyou see any slang in the article feel free to edit it by yourself.

About the fansite-like claiming: what the reasons are for such a claim? could you point us to specific reasons and about what should be changed in your point of view?. You can't just say "this is read like a fansite" and put a template. Explain yourself. But first read the template about how to build an article related to a female pornstar and tell us what you think that it is wrong here. I think the content and the style of this article fits pretty much with other pornstar articles and with the female pornstar biography template. Please, discuss and reach consensus before be so quick putting templates related to article's style. Purplehayes2006 14:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It's true that we shouldn't just remove claims of reading like a fansite without discussion. However, there does need to be discussion. Purplehayes2006 is asking for more details. Please give some.

I can make some suggestions myself, but I can't guarantee this is exactly what User:I do not exist is objecting to.

• some of the quotes seem to be puffery: "I was so horny!. Anyhow, from there I just kept going; I couldn't get enough!" I suspect 90% of performers in her field would say more or less the same thing when asked to by their production companies' press agents; and 90% of them would later say they didn't mean a word of it.

In my opinion it is fair use that quote since it is related with the first movie she did and therefore the start of her career. About if she really felt what she said, well, we are nobody to judge that. At least Jenna Haze is well known inside industry for her professionalism, and even being a major pornstar she is not in the spot of gossip sites for "bad behavior", like for having bad relations with other members of the industry and so on. I think she deserves some respect and at least we should give to her the benefit of the doubt. Purplehayes2006 19:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• other parts of the article don't seem to be directly connected with what makes her particularly notable.

That would be my bad for sure, in the meaning that maybe it is not clear for most readers what my intention was when I used some of those quotes. Sorry. Purplehayes2006 19:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

So below I'm going to explain myself for the parts cited by AnonEMouse Purplehayes2006 19:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• • "About being young she says: "I don't remember much about being young except that I was boy & girl crazy from the start".[4] If she doesn't remember much, there isn't much to say, is there? If the point was to say that she was bisexual early, this might possibly be relevant, but I don't see our article making that connection.

Yes, I wanted to say that she was bisexual early, something that she also says in the Rog Interview from 2001, and it is the meaning of her words in that quote, but yes it could be written in a different way. Purplehayes2006 19:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• • "She got good grades in school until about junior high school. Then she really discovered boys and sex." - That's called adolescence, and happens to everyone. Did she become famous in junior high? If not, it's nothing that most of us couldn't say. If she hit adolescence at 8 or at 20, that might be notable. At 13, it's no big deal.

Oh well, "Then she really discovered boys and sex." could be removed; I just used it as a previous to say "when and how" she lost her virginity. But I agree that could be removed (I am tempted to do it right now...). Purplehayes2006 19:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• • Regarding anal sex she has said that "I wasn't a big fan of anal sex until I turned 15. I tried it for the first time and I loved it!". - again, this might be relevant if she were particularly notable for anal sex, but she doesn't seem to be; she has an award for oral sex, but nothing for anal.

That's an old quote on this article. She is well known for anal sex indeed, no matter if she hasn't an specific award for it (yet). Also have an award for anal sex shouldn't be a requirement to say (quoting the actress indeed) when she started to practice anal sex. Plus 15 is a really early age to start with. Purplehayes2006 19:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, those are just my comments (not an exhaustive list, just a sample - there are other similar places in the article). Perhaps addressing them will be enough for User:I do not exist, and we can fairly remove the tag. If not, the user really should specify. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I see, the main problem is related with the use of some quotes. It is something I wanted to know, I mean, say just "it reads like a fansite" doesn't help to improve the article. Also, I think that to tag the article in that way, the user that put the tag should specify the reason for the tagging, not just "it reads like a fansite". About the quotes, I just respected the content of the original text, and my intention was integrate them in the text to highlight some specific passages or relevant/interesting moments in the biography. But seems that in some cases was not clear. Sorry. Thanks AnonEMouse for take time to participate in this discussion. You're going to think that I am a pain in the ass... Purplehayes2006 19:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I was typing this out before Purplehayes2006 posted his response, but I figure I'd still post it anyway. My reason for listing the article for rewrite was that the tone of the article and "style" isn't becoming of an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and stating that the "style" used in the article has been consistently "simple" and should stay that way isn't an excuse. Again, this is meant to be an encyclopedia article, not something posted on Angelfire. If you want to use "simple" English, post the article in Simple English Wikipedia. The fact that it's an article about a female porn star makes no difference. Should articles about children's television programs be written in a "simple" style because children watch it? No. So why should articles about actors and actresses be written in a "simple" style? The subject matter of the article isn't an excuse.

Additionally, I listed the article for a rewrite because merely replacing a few words here and there isn't going to change the tone of the article. I've seen grade school English papers written more thoughtfully and professionally than this article is. :::AnonEMouse lists several examples of the problems I also see in the article. The language used seems too colloquial and not worthy of an encyclopedia article. Let me list a few examples.

• She got good grades in school until about junior high school. Then she really discovered boys and sex. She lost her virginity on the first day of high school, at the age of 14, saying "I had just been dumped by this guy who broke up with me because I wouldn't put out. I said screw it and slept with another guy on the first day of high school."[1][4] Regarding anal sex she has said that "I wasn't a big fan of anal sex until I turned 15. I tried it for the first time and I loved it!".[5]

The phrase "got good grades" is a colloquialism that has no place in an encyclopedia entry. Secondly, the next line reads "Then she really discovered boys and sex." How does one really discover something? You either discover something or you don't. In addition, what does the last line, regarding anal sex, have to do with the rest of the paragraph? It's not clear to me.

• Then when she was 19 she left her boyfriend of almost 4 years and set upon experiencing life and not being shackled down. She was pretty wild and started going out to dance clubs and after hours parties. She was at her favorite nightclub at the time, in Anaheim, California, when the guy she was seeing introduced her to his friend who apparently had some connections with the adult industry. They both told Haze that she would be perfect for adult films and asked her if she would like to try it. She had always been a big fan of porn, so she accepted the offer. The next day she went down to the valley and got her test and the next day after that she was doing her first scene.[4]

Again, this paragraph is full of informal language that isn't suitable for being in an encyclopedia. Take the phrases "not being shackled down" and "was pretty wild" just as an example. The phrase "was pretty wild" is particularly problematic as "pretty" is relative. She's certainly more wild than the Pope but some might not consider her as wild as Tommy Lee. Most, if not all, of the paragraphs in this article have similar issues. Again, this is why I tagged it for a rewrite. Just changing the few examples I or AnonEMouse listed isn't going to fix the entire article. Most of it needs to be reworked.

For similar reasons I also listed this as a fansite. Fan sites regularly use informal language and colloquial terms. Also like fan sites, this article contains quotes and information that don't seem to be notable or important to anyone but fans. For instance

• Haze grew up a product of a divorced family like many of her peers. She has two sisters and one brother all of them much older than her. About being young she says: "I don't remember much about being young except that I was boy & girl crazy from the start".[4]

1) Has anyone actually done a study to show that porn stars are "a product of divorced" families?

2) Many individuals, including people who aren't porn stars, enjoy sex "from the start". It's not notable that she does. In fact, one could probably infer that she does, since she's a porn star.

1)It is something that Miss Haze said. (sourced).

2)It is referred to her early bisexuality.(sourced)

And as I said it can be written in a different way. Purplehayes2006 03:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I hope I've stated my case at this point. Again, just changing the few examples that I listed aren't enough to remove the rewrite or fansite tag in my opinion. The entire article's tone needs to be brought up to a standard matching Wikipedia's aim of being an encyclopedia. The day I can open up the Encyclopedia Britannica and see phrases like "got good grades" or "was pretty wild" is the day that I can remove the rewrite and fansite tags from this article in its current form. Eulerskunk 20:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

First off I wonder how easily some people change the meaning of what others say and how easily they make wrong judgements. Eulerskunk, the relation that you are making between "simple" English and articles related to pornstars is not what I said in any way. I just suggested to compare this article with other articles related to pornstar's biographies. You are meaning that I suggested to write this article using informal language just because it is an article related to a pornstar, and that was NOT what I said. I would be really offended if you are trying to mean that. I think it was just a mistake, so I'm not going to "throw stones" against you. But please moderate a little bit the aggressiveness and sarcasm of your tone; be sure that it doesn't impress me in any way... just it is a "kiddy" tone that will not contribute to drive an adult discussion. I think you will agree with me on that.

The "simple" language, the informal narration is something that was there ALWAYS in the full history of this article; I just respected that style of writing.

It is simply incredible... this article was not really expanded in ages and no one said anything about the language style used in it... now I'm getting punches like if I was "the ultimate evil" for make a big expansion and being respectful with the style previously used in this article.

For God's shake... please, I AGREE in writing this article in a more academic style!. Please do it!. I just was respectful with the given style. I put all the info over the table and did a research with more than 15 reliable references to use as sources.

I might write the article in a more academic style, yes; and I will if it is needed, even when it is not an easy task for me having in count that English is not my native language and I didn't even go to an academy or so to learn English; I learn it by myself (as I'm doing right now while I'm writing this text). I could have written the article in a different way: yes. I might indeed. The way I wrote the article is just because I tried to respect the style of the article, and of course I feel more comfortable writing in a more "relaxed" way in English.

A note: I don't get upset or whatever if someone corrects what I write... please, do it! I will be thankful for it.

Final note: I do agree in the use of a more academic style. Please do it... as user Vinh1313 is doing it already. I will be here and make my contrib too, but later... just not a good moment for me. Purplehayes2006 03:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm attempting a rewrite right now. Her early life stuff was easy. The porn career section, well that's a bit more difficult. I agree it does sound like a fansite. Vinh1313 21:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I had a chop at it. Anyone else? Vinh1313 15:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I have also added a section called "Filmography" and make a short list of only some highlighted and well-know movies released after Jenna Haze Darkside. I did it following the female pornstar template for movies. All the movies are well-know and there is something relevant about them. I stated the company, director and Jenna Haze role in the movie. I also did a little critical commentary. I made a bulleted list from oldest to newest. It is done as per the template. And of course, I used reliable sources for all the claimings and movie info.

I think that after the rewriting from Vinh1313 and a few more changes already done, the article is Ok now. Purplehayes2006 01:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I feel the article can still be rewritten in a more concise manner. I found some of the things I removed and purplehayes reintroduced to be redundant and the quotes to be trivial (and a copy & paste hackjob) when the general idea can be easily summarised. Is there a reason why her filmography only discusses movies post Darkside?Vinh1313 06:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Trivia quotes? The only quote I added to the Biography is related to the release of JH Darkside, a very important and relevant moment in Jenna Haze career. The use of the quote is obvious: a short view of that moment in Jenna Haze's words. Also a quote HAVE to be a "copy & paste". The original text has to respected in a quotation. I guess your "redundant" argument is about the use of that quote?

These are all the changes from your last version to mine

I wonder what things I reintroduced that make the article or any info exposed in it to be redundant.

About the filmography: I specified movies "after JH Darkside" because I am using that movie as a point of reference, and so far I was searching and making a selection of movies released after JH Darkside. Currently there is just 6 movies "after JH Darkside" listed in the Filmography section of this article, but actually there is 3 more movies I'm considering to add (movies post Darkside, I mean). It is just a temporary situation. I will add "movies pre-JH DArkside", just I need to find the time to do the research (good sources included) and put them in the list. But trying to keep the list short, because in my opinion the "weight" of the Filmography section shouldn't be too much, should be far of what is happening right now with the "Acting credits" section in the Tracy Lords article, for example.

It is just that take some time do a short and fair selection between 300+ movies.

In any case, in my opinion, there is not enough reason to still persist in the tagging of the article in its current form. Purplehayes2006 14:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I found the quotes trivial and those included the one you re-added embedded within the filmography. I mentioned cut & paste hackjob because I found the use of blockquotes to be lazy writing when you could have paraphrased whatever point you were trying to make, if there was any beyond cruft. But all of this is now moot due to edits described in the section below. Vinh1313 04:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It is ok. I didn't undertand you at first. I thought you said that I re-added quotes (when I just added one). Of course I accept the consensus about that quote. My bad. Also I wanted to show that I made few changes between your last edit and mine. Purplehayes2006 04:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

I'm going to 'straighten up' this article, removing extraneous information to bring it more in line with standard bios. Commentary and extraneous information will be "tidied up" BrickMcLargeHuge —Preceding comment was added at 20:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I've finished editing this article to remove 'cruft' and try to bring the page more in line with Wikipedian standards on performing artists. This includes removing "press release"-type bio information which does not give the reader perspective on the artist, and multi-line summaries of films Ms. Haze has "acted" in. I've also revised much of the language to bring it to English standards and removed informalities such as "The guy she was dating at the time". Also, removed some non-useful quotes such as "I couldn't wait to have a cock inside me!" (don't most hetero pornographic acresses?). BrickMcLargeHuge 02:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Said quote might also be true for a number of the gay male actors as well. <G> But yeah, I can't really see how that might be of encyclopedic note. Tabercil 03:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

"I had some sexual energy pent up. Three and a half years of just dildos and licking. I need to get some cock in there. It's a good release of energy. It's a lot of fun. It's really cool. I've been dying to do guys again for so long. It's exciting, I'm glad to be back". What Jenna says is not "I couldn't wait to have a cock inside me!". Do I really have to explain the difference?. No worries, I didn't restore the quote anyway... :-P Sorry.

First of say that I think that BrickMcLargeHuge did a good work with the writing, but with some mistakes.Besides, I wonder why the text deletion in some cases.

In order to don't go in a never ending discussion I will just point the next cases:

• It is the "Early life and career" section, so as we have information about an experience as stripper that also has relation with the origin of her artistic name, we should expose this passage in the article too. I did add this info.
• "Jenna's porn career began at the age of 18 in Anaheim, California" That is inaccurate. We don't have any reference about where she did her first movie. Besides she was 19 when she started her porn career. I rebuilt this passage.
• "In 2002, Haze signed an exclusive performing contract with Jill Kelly Productions." Is that all about? Since we have precise and extensive information about this passage, at least we should show in the article the motivations Jenna had to make this important decision in her porn career. I re-inserted that info.

Now I want to ask about what you call "multi-line summaries of films Ms. Haze has "acted" in." (performed in). Why the deletion? From Template:Female_porn_biography#Movies: "A list or statistic of how many productions the porn star has been in can be listed here. You may include non-explicit box cover images in this section only if the article has critical commentary regarding the person's appearance in the said film movie. (see WP:FAIR). You can also include a short list of well-known productions in a bulleted list in order from oldest to newest." I comment a little regarding Jenna in these films and I also offer specific information about the relevancy of these films and their achievements where applicable. It is something good and fair to do, in my opinion. Of course I offer sources, in my opinion reliable references are needed for each movie in the list. Anyone else have an opinion about this point?. Purplehayes2006 04:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Wanted to comment on some of the filmography notes. I don't find them important except only to "a small population of enthusiastic fans". Stormy's notability (expense, award) is not attributable to Jenna. If a girlbang is a female version of a gangbang (multiple females on one female), then Metro is definitely not the first company to shoot one, despite what Devinn Lane says. F2's scene notability can be summarised in the awards section. Interactive: Does Jenna have a habit of engaging in faked cumshot scenes? Vinh1313 05:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Damnit, I didn't write in my reply of above that I did write this section in a shorten way already. Look at the article and you will see. Of course she doesn't do faked cumshots scenes. About fake cumshots, that is something that is/was done in many Interactive DVDs. Digitalized cumshots. This movie has a big number of cumshots and all of them are real. The girlbang statement is interesting. Even when there is previous movies featuring a group of females on one female, the "girlbang" concept comes from Devin Lane. That is true. This girlbang movie offers substancial differences compared with those you listed, including the big number of females over Jenna Haze. Purplehayes2006 05:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

What substantial differences and how are they notable?! The number? How many girls have to be in a girlbang? This is not a concept or term invented by Devinn Lane. As for the interactive faking allegations, is this commonly known or published in wikipedia? If not, where is your source? Vinh1313 06:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a way to show it to you. But in the AVN article it is mentioned many new features. I will not discuss about this again. I did delete those lines in the "Partial filmography" section already since I can't state my point with a source. Purplehayes2006 07:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I restored the fansite and rewrite tags as seen in the log summaries. I don't think it's appropriate at all for purplehayes to remove these tags. I know that BrickMcLargeHuge originally removed the tags, but you reintroduced some of the controversial content. The point of the fansite tag is the allegation that some of the content is important only "to a small population of enthusiastic fans". The implication of course is that "the content is unimportant and the contributor's judgment of importance of the topic is inhibited by their fanaticism". The facts that purplehayes's account name is an homage to Jenna and that he only contributes to the Jenna Haze article strongly suggest that he is fan of Jenna Haze. The neutrality of his judgment must be questioned. Since much of the controversial content was from his contributions, he shouldn't be the one removing the tag. Vinh1313 06:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

"I know that BrickMcLargeHuge originally removed the tags, but you reintroduced some of the controversial content" I didn't reintroduce controversial content. I already explained above the few adds I did in the "Biography" section after BrickMcLargeHuge's edit. I also restored a few sources needed for the content of the article. The only discussion was about the lines in the "Partial filmography" section, but that is not a reason to add the tags again.

"The facts that purplehayes's account name is an homage to Jenna and that he only contributes to the Jenna Haze article strongly suggest that he is fan of Jenna Haze. The neutrality of his judgment must be questioned" No matter my tastes or what I like or if I am a fan of Jenna Haze, or how many edits I did in this article or if it is the only article where I've edited in wiki so far. I really try to upgrade the article in a fair way and my attitude is open to dialogue and to reach consensus. Discuss points is a good thing. It is the best way, don't think so?. I am not "close mind". Don't call me fanatic. The storyline is there, I didn't do vandalism, I didn't have a conduct or attitude discouraging anyone to make their contributions in the article, I've searched and show lots of reliable sources, I am open to discuss subjects and issues about the article and reach and respect consensus. I am entitled to edit the page in that fair way like any other user. Don't comment on me, keep your comments on the article.

"Since much of the controversial content was from his contributions, he shouldn't be the one removing the tag." oh my... I put a lot of new content to this article. ALL the content I added has a source. I know about the fansite-like, and I AGREE in change it, I already said that when I wrote the new content I did it in an informal style because that was the style of this article since forever. I am NOT an expert in wiki, but I learn everytime appears an issue. Like this time I am about the encyclopedic style. You can't say I have a bad behavior in any way.

About the movies, I not only wrote something regarding Jenna Haze in the movie. As I said, in some cases I wrote something relevant about the movie itself. I opened a discussion about this matter in the talk page, and I was changing the content at the time I read your replies about it. Then instead of continue the talk you just jumped to call me "fanatic". C'mon...

I will leave the tag deletion to Tabercil or any other user with a contribution in this discussion. This is being long and I don't want to make it longer. Purplehayes2006 07:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

"Don't comment on me, keep your comments on the article." Sorry, you've made your "opinion" the subject of discussion by prefacing your arguments about appropriate content with "in my opinion". The tag "fansite" questioned the neutrality of opinion on the notability of content that you put in. It was a conflict of interest for you to remove that tag. The neutrality of your opinion is going to be questioned when you re-add content that other editors have identified and excised as fancruft. Second, when responding to a person's post in the discussion, please don't splice another user's post with your comments like you did with AnonEMouse above. If you have to address another user's post point-by-point, just quote the point briefly and respond to that quote. It makes the discussion easier to read and to attribute to the correct author. Vinh1313 20:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious??? "In my opinion" is just a way of talking. All we have our own opinions. It is a way of say "I think that it is fair and right", but I have "an open door" to talk with someone that thinks that I am wrong. Besides, no matter what you say, "other editors" have done errors editing the article (like deletion of sources and other issues), and if I see them I'm going to put them right and fair. "Re-add some content" that I previously wrote and start a discussion about it, it is not going to question my neutrality. Besides... neutrality? who human being is neutral? what matters is the attitude and fair acts from users. If I don't see why someone is deleting part of the text, or if I see that someone is deleting a text for a wrong conviction I will restore it and start a discussion if it is needed... and maybe I am the one who is wrong in that subject or maybe it is the other user. Comment over the article not over the users. Don't go over this again.

I see your point about my replies to AnonEMouse above and you see how I was doing it later, so no worries.Purplehayes2006 01:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Adds and fixes after cleanup

My adds:

• It is the "Early life and career" section, so as we have information about her experience as stripper that also has relation with the origin of her artistic name, we should expose this passage in the article too. I did add this info.
• "Jenna's porn career began at the age of 18 in Anaheim, California" That is inaccurate. We don't have any reference about where she did her first movie. Besides she was 19 when she started her porn career. I rebuilt this passage.
• "In 2002, Haze signed an exclusive performing contract with Jill Kelly Productions." Is that all about? Since we have precise and extensive information about this passage, at least we should show in the article the motivations Jenna had to make this important decision in her porn career. I re-inserted that info.

I've also added a few sources needed for the article and correct some minor issues. If someone REALLY think that this is controversial material state your points here, please.Purplehayes2006 08:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Explain how her experiences as a stripper shaped her porn name. Was she asked by her stripper friends? Or is the relation based on the fact that they are both adult-oriented professions? *You also left out why you added the details of her early life like home schooling, multiple jobs, her sibling's age relation to her. How do they make Jenna notable? Vinh1313 20:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I expressed bad myself. I wanted to say that we have a source about those passages of Jenna's early life (her experience as stripper and the origin of her porn name); didn't want to say that she was asked, when she stripped that day, about what name she would use if she was a porn actress. Now I see that the way I said it can be confuse. Sorry.

And yes, her only day as a house girl is also an adult-oriented profession.

Studies, jobs, family... they don't make her notable, but they are information, events and passages about her early life, that kind of info shapes a biography too. And we have sources, fair ones, like interviews to Jenna to state those facts. Why are they going to be controversial if we have fair reliable sources?. Why are they going to be controversial if it is not information "just for fans"?.Purplehayes2006 01:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The better word to use instead of controversial is disputed. The dispute is whether the content is notable or simply fancruft, information that is only important to a small population of enthusiastic fans. Vinh1313 20:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok "disputed" (that's my English...). So when you write the biography of a person, when you write about her "early life and career"... don't you write about her/his family, jobs and studies?. Are they not factors of common interest? I don't think that that information is only interesting/important for fans. But hey, I also think that the information about factors that don't make the person notable for them should have a little weight in the article and they should be writen short. In this case, I think they are short and well writen. Purplehayes2006 22:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Awards

I'm concerned about the notability of awards that rely on primary sources (basically citations to itself) like rogreviews and adultdvdempire. This is not independent coverage. I could give out a bunch of awards on my website and have someone cite to it but it doesn't make it notable. We need citations that are independent of the award. (I am not including awards that are independently notable like AVN, FAME, XRCO). An example of the difference would be footnote 28 and footnote 29. Vinh1313 (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes you could give out a bunch of awards in your website... and nothing happens.

You need to be notable. For that you need to get recognition and credibility, and a whole "worlwide" coverage is not the only way to indentify them.

Notability of the awards. Ok.

About Empire Awards:

http://www.avn.com/index.cfm?objectID=EC94F110-1372-4B41-C460A7D4585EE9D3&criteria=empire+awards&asArticleSubmit=search&ltypenames=1

About Rogreviews Awards:

Type "rogreviews awards" in google. Rogreviews awards might have not an article at AVN.com, but AVN.com mention and use reviews from rogreviews.com in some of their articles ([4]) what talks very good about Roger T. Pipe's credibility and notoriety in the Industry.

Anyhow, Rogreviews Awards do appeared in some other well known sites like http://adultfyi.com/read.php?ID=19565 , and they appear in LOTS of bios related to people of the Industry, including online stores (like fetishmovies.com, for example).

It is porn stars who mention that they won Rogreviews Awards, porn stars themselves are giving relevance to them. Rogreviews Awards might not be pompous like other awards ceremonies, not red carpet and all that atuff, not a lot of coverage from other sites, but these awards DO have the recognition from members of the Industry, and that's matters. Purplehayes2006 (talk) 14:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You cited independent coverage of the Empire Awards (and you should change the relevant citations in the wikipedia article to that Feb 2008 AVN article). However, rogreviews awards, not the reviewer, still need independent coverage by a reliable source. Reliable sources are those that have reputations for fact-checking and accuracy. Gene Ross (a porn gossiper), with a press release no less, is not one of them. When I say independent, I mean coverage that is independent of the award, the award winner, the award giver, and any of their publicists. Rog is actually a friend of mine so I should actually be biased to favor him. Rog's alleged notability should not be presumed to automatically transfer to his awards. Vinh1313 (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

"Yes you could give out a bunch of awards in your website... and nothing happens." As an aside, my statement was meant to be ironic considering I do nominate awards. Most people may not realise this but I'm indirectly the reason why Tiffany Rayne is considered notable for Wikipedia. I'm sure there are others. Depending on the day, I find it funny. Vinh1313 (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi morbid. :-). When I mentioned AdulFYI I didn't mean it like a reliable source of course. I know what kind of site is. I was just putting out a known site I found (doing a quick search) where Rogreviews Awards have been mentioned. I know: "independent"; when I was talking about Rog I just was talking about the credibility and notability of him because I think that it is important if we use his website to cite his awards. I wanted to state that not everyone have the lucky of be able to expend thousands of dollars in an awards ceremony and get the whole press coverage, but it doesn't mean that Rogreviews Awards have not credibility and recognition from people in the Industry. Not all is about AVN Awards and red carpets. Yeah, Rogreviews Awards can't compete or get the coverage of AVN, XRCO, FAME, NightMoves... but the good thing about Rog and his Awards is that they are appreciated (not at the same level of course) for both, porn stars and fans, without having the money-coverage of a major awards.

So I wonder if it is always needed a coverage from a different reliable source other than the main site of the Award in question, or if in the case of Rogreviews Awards could be enough a citation to his own website having in count Rogs credibility. Just wonderin. Well, I think I'm making a point... but I dunno if I am expressing well myself. Once again, sorry for my English.

I did add just now the citation from AVN for the Empire Awards in the article. I kept the reference to the main list of winners in empireawards.com. Maybe it is better have both?. I also was looking for a independent reliable source offering coverage for Rogs Awards but I didn't find anything yet. Maybe someone else can help on this. Purplehayes2006 (talk) 14:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Double citations are fine for the empire awards if you need to use a primary source. When there's a secondary source that reports or says the same thing, you should use that instead. I'm just skeptical of the notability of Rog's awards when there is no independent coverage of them by a reliable source. The other big issue with Rog's Awards is that half of it is "Fan Favourite" where it is not even his opinion but the opinion of his readers. I'm not going to remove Rogreview awards from the article because of the use of primary sources but the primary source tag has to stay for now. If the situation affects Jenna's GA rating, then you should consider removing them. Vinh1313 (talk) 22:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the "Fan Favourite" awards are not under Rogs opinion but they are under Rogs responsibility and it is him who gives those Awards. "Fan Favorite" and "Critics Choice" are both Rogs Awards and who picks the winners doesn't matters: both types of awards are under Rogs responsibility and that is what matter. FAME Awards is a major awards with a bunch of big sponsors and a whole team work behind... but still is about fans choice.

Ummm I'm thinking... if there is not any independent reliable source for Rogs Awards... what about remove them from the "Awards" section of the article but instead mention them in the "Film career" section? Like mention that Jenna won two times in a row the "Rog Reviews Awards Fan Favorite for Best Female Performer" (2006 and 2007). Purplehayes2006 (talk) 23:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Same issue happens wherever you move it, but I was mistaken in following WP:Notability when it should be WP:Verifiability: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Rogreview is considered a questionable source (because it relies heavily on personal opinion) and is self-published. The article is weakened with its inclusion. Vinh1313 (talk) 04:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Didn't appear anyone yet showing up a third-party source about Rogs Awards, so I think that they should be removed until someone find a reliable third-party article about Rogs Awards. Purplehayes2006 (talk) 22:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

All right. Sorry, Rog. Vinh1313 (talk) 23:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Superbad-Cameo

Article says: "In the 2007 mainstream comedy film, Superbad, Haze made a short appearance in the role of Vagtastic Voyage Girl #2." Sorry guys, but in fact, that's wrong. Haze does NOT appear in the movie itself, but in some sort of making of for the bonus DVD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.41.89.212 (talk) 23:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

In fact Jenna Haze DOES make a short appearance in the movie itself as one of the two Vagtastic Voyage Girls and so she is in the credits of the movie, AND she is also in the special feature "The Vag-Tastic Voyage" in the bonus DVD for the Unrated Extended Edition. Purplehayes2006 (talk) 13:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Linkfarm

Per WP:ELNO, it would seem as though having Twitter, MySpace, and two official websites is a bit excessive. Cutting this down to just the official website would seem sufficient. There are quite a few more that could probably be cut as well to avoid having a WP:LINKFARM. I tried to do this before, but I was reverted. Please discuss. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 04:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not see what is wrong with Twitter, MySpace and an official page. I also can not see what has bascially changed since the last discussion which is still on this talk page and why you have started a new section. Maybe you want to add new arguments or be more specific if you want to have only a specific link removed? Testales (talk) 12:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Testales (talk). Also this was discussed again not long ago at the external links noticeboard for more eyes to see, and final resolution was keep the links. Besides Wikipedia:ELNO#Official_links states that "If the subject of the article has more than one official website, then more than one link may be appropriate." and continues "For example, if the main page of the official website for an author contains a link to the author's blog and Twitter feed, then it is not appropriate to provide links to all three. Instead, provide only the main page of the official website in this situation." Those are Jenna's official MySpace, Twitter and Yahoo Group, and jennahaze.com doesn't contain any link to any of them. Purplehayes2006 (talk) 16:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Real Name

ive put her real name in this article and included about sources for it but it keeps getting deleted. as far as im aware imdb would be a legitimate source as anyone cannot not go and change the name of a certain person as they like. in fact id say imdb would be stronger than wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warricksandilands (talk • contribs) 08:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

It has been deleted because the sources you have provided are not considered reliable.  – ukexpat (talk) 16:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

well i gave 6 different sources, please tell what sources are reliable and explain why imdb is not a reliablle source —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warricksandilands (talk • contribs) 16:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, which explains it. As for IMDB, see WP:RS/IMDB for an explanation. Tabercil (talk) 23:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

well what is the source for her growing up in fullerton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.19.143.47 (talk) 17:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

She didn't - it says she was born in Fullerton, and that's trackable back to her AVN and Rog interviews. Tabercil (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's a source for her name:[5]. Fences&Windows 02:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Read up this page and you'll see that "source" has been previously discussed - they took that name from Wikipedia. They prove it here: "As to your outrage about our using Jen's real name, do me a favor. Go ahead and Google "Jenna Haze." I'll wait . . . okay, go ahead and click on that third entry from Wikipedia. Great. Now what does that first line say? "Jenna Haze (born XXX XXX on Feb. 22, 1982 in Fullerton, California, USA)." ("real name" redacted). End result: we can't use it. Tabercil (talk) 04:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you're misreading that statement. The editor of OC Weekly is using the presence of her name at the time in Wikipedia as evidence of it being public (admittedly a weak argument...), not saying it was their source. He goes on to say that "Jenna's own people didn't have a problem with it. Her agent even e-mailed us after the story ran and requested additional copies." I don't think your assumption of circular referencing is correct, but I'm not going to fight for inclusion. Fences&Windows 19:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Awards

The awards section in this article was neatly divided into subsections of "Awards received by Jenna Haze", "Awards received by the film Jenna Haze Darkside", and "Awards received by the film Interactive Sex With Jenna Haze" for the past six years without any dispute. This article also passed the good article criteria and the nomination process without there being a discussion about whether those awards belong in the article or not. With all this information in mind, it is safe to assume that including the awards received by these two films in this article is not spam since there are indeed relevant to the article. A user by the name of Cavarrone decided to remove these awards from the article, insisting that it is spam. This all started because I used the format which was used in this articles awards section on other articles and Cavarrone reverted my edits and accused me of spamming. I explained to him that good articles, such as Jenna Haze's, set the standard on how to edit other articles and that's when he decided to remove those awards from this article. I would really like to hear someone else's opinion on this matter and put an end to this dispute between me and Cavarrone. Rebecca1990 (talk) 21:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• First, the article was assessed as a good article 6 years ago, that for Wikipedia is like to say 20 years ago. I doubt today it would be reviewed similarly, as, eg., the main source for the biography is an AVN profile and "their porn star profiles are often copied from other sites and cannot be treated as reliable". Secondly, the GA process is very different from a FA nom process, the reviewer was not called to review in depht any aspect of the article, but just the usual six points ( Well written?, Factually accurate?, Broad in coverage?, Neutral point of view?, Article stability?, Images).

That being said, here I applied our standard practice and the removed awards were not given to her, plain and simple. Almost every pornstar has a number of films with her name in the title but we never list the awards/noms of these films if they are not specifically related to their performances. This is the well established standard for hundreds of articles, this one was the (almost?) unique exception to the rule, I challenge you to find several other similar examples in the thousand of porn-related bio articles we have. This is also the reason because we have different articles for Tori Black and Tori Black Is Pretty Filthy. I kept the awards that are actually related to her (eg. the AVN Award for Best Oral Sex Scene for Jenna Haze Darkside or the CAVR Best Movie Performance for the same film) or to her company and removed the rest, as common sense and standard practices require. Cavarrone 23:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

First of all, this article was assessed as a good article three years ago, not six. Secondly, yes, you're right, those awards weren't given directly to her, but they were given to a film which is entirely about her. This is why they are divided neatly into different subsections such as "Awards received by Jenna Haze", "Awards received by the film Jenna Haze Darkside", and "Awards received by the film Interactive Sex With Jenna Haze" instead of being put all together as awards received directly by Jenna Haze herself. These awards are relevant to the article and are not spam. And yes, I already know of other porn articles which include both performer awards and awards received by their films, but I'm not giving you any names because I know you're just going to remove those awards and say they are "spam". If instead of having it's own subsection in the awards section of the article, it had a paragraph in the "adult film career" section of the article, describing the films and the awards they received, you wouldn't remove it, am I right? I believe this is an appropriate format which I will continue using and I would really appreciate it if you stopped meddling into my contributions history since I am genuinely trying my best to improve the articles I edit. And also, you already heard what I had to say, I already heard what you had to say, and now I would like to hear another user's opinion on this matter. Rebecca1990 (talk) 02:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

You keep saying "These awards are relevant to the article" without explaining why.

And about the other porn articles I should maybe specify "articles not edited by Rebecca1990... found this one, how the AVN Best Director Award to Barrett Blade for Jessie Rogers: Unbreakable is relevant to Jessie Rogers? The award section of an article is patently intended to list the awards received by the title subject during his/her career, not the awards received by Barrett Blade or Jules Jordan or someone other. Otherwise these sections would be an inextricable mess. Cavarrone 06:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

These awards you keep removing from articles including Jenna Haze's are not WP:Spam. Removing them and/or blanking that section of the article is WP:Vandalism. Now stop it. Rebecca1990 (talk) 19:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with Cavaronne. Listing awards for movies in which she was in every scene (but didn't produce) seems to be an arbitrary distinction from the other movies that she is featured in. Seems to violate the spirit of WP:UNDUE and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Better to create an article for that movie if it's so accomplished. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2014

Jenna Haze was not in B.o.B.'s music video "John Doe." The two actresses in the video are Skin Diamond and Allie Haze. The article which is cited says "Diamond, Haze" are in the video, but it is Allie Haze, not Jenna Haze. 71.117.132.90 (talk) 05:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done

After watching the video, it's not Jenna Haze. Dismas|^(talk) 05:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Hat note

I just added a hat note about the "other" Haze actress, Allie. Apparently they get confused enough that information for the wrong Haze has been added to their respective articles. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 22:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Obviously. But your hatnote has been removed and as the average IP user I cannot edit this page. I evidently support the idea that it should be put back there. Cheers, --36.55.207.203 (talk) 06:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it should be kept and have reinserted it. Dismas|^(talk) 08:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

And thank you for that. But, although it seems to me it is most commonsensical and pragmatic, apparently not everybody does agree with this (see here). Cheers, --36.55.207.203 (talk) 09:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Hatnotes are used to link articles to one another when they have similar overall names, not just the same first or last name, and can be easily confused for one another, such as Sunny Lane and Sunny Leone. We can't just add hatnotes to every biography on WP and link them to every other one with the same last name. Rebecca1990 (talk) 19:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Rebecca1990. On top of that, they do not look alike either, which would make confusing the two even less likely. Nymf (talk) 19:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2015

Haze grew up with divorced parents and two sisters and a brother, all much older than her.[1]

Should be "much older than she." Even though we're writing about porn, grammar still matters :) 96.42.81.223 (talk) 08:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Done — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 16:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2015

42.101.184.60 (talk) 14:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jenna Haze. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140309231627/http://www.triplem.com.au/brisbane/music/news/blog/video-taylor-momsen-from-pretty-reckless-has-a-sexy-new-music-video/20120313-fuhu.html to http://www.triplem.com.au/brisbane/music/news/blog/video-taylor-momsen-from-pretty-reckless-has-a-sexy-new-music-video/20120313-fuhu.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Jenna Haze. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131019151719/http://www.fhm.com/girls/news/fhm-at-taylor-momsens-sexy-house-party-82987 to http://www.fhm.com/girls/news/fhm-at-taylor-momsens-sexy-house-party-82987
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090805100008/http://business.avn.com:80/articles/8131.html to http://business.avn.com/articles/8131.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090805095948/http://business.avn.com:80/articles/2609.html to http://business.avn.com/articles/2609.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090228062450/http://business.avn.com/articles/2759.html to http://business.avn.com/articles/2759.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140316035017/http://hot-dor.fr/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=2&Itemid=4 to http://hot-dor.fr/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=2&Itemid=4

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:41, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Jenna Haze. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090405173300/http://www.avn.com/porn-stars/70976.html to http://www.avn.com/porn-stars/70976.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714133621/http://www.xtrememagazine.com/2010/07/jenna-haze-wanted/ to http://www.xtrememagazine.com/2010/07/jenna-haze-wanted/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090420022015/http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6723&Itemid=99 to http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6723&Itemid=99
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081223172858/http://adultfyi.com/read.php?ID=23472 to http://adultfyi.com/read.php?ID=23472

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:25, 12 May 2017 (UTC)