Talk:Sasha Grey

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Adult and atheist categories[edit]

Four adult categories were unclear, and I removed them "immediately" (= years too late) per policy. Are former porn stars supposed to be categorized like active actresses, or does that make no sense? This must be some solved problem, I just don't know what the solution was, and where it is documented, e.g., not in Category:American pornographic film actresses.

Next issue, assuming that one category is okay, which should it be? Is "bisexual" better—in a cybernetical sense, least loss of information—than "American"? For "pornographic film actors from California" I'd assume that it's better than "American pornographic film actresses", a small loss for the gender info vs. a huge win for the location.

After that it gets bizarre, not unusual in the Fields of Grey, is "LGBT adult models" better than "American female adult models", and why on earth do these rotten cats try to mix four unrelated concepts (occupation, location, gender, sexual preferences)? Categories for cinéastes, vinyl collectors, or industrial musicians would be far more interesting than this ex-job/geo/sex mash-up.

I've also replaced two "atheist" categories by one "existentialist" category. Nobody knows if she's an atheist (as in "no god or goddess at all"), a part-time atheist (as in "still praying occasionally"), or even belongs to Category:Christian existentialists, but I know that BLP-cats are no BS-bingo for best OR-guesses. –84.46.53.95 (talk) 19:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commons OVERcat
Ditto, two LGBT cats retired, covered by two corresponding bisexual categories, the locations (CA or US) are also covered in other cats. –84.46.52.142 (talk) 01:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Steam5: Your edit summary Please don't remove the categories, This is for her nationality and the occupations makes no sense for me, the B in Bisexual is the same as in LGBT, the former is a proper subset of the latter (aka "sharper"). We have twelve American and five California categories for the nationality, and as noted above two occupations (musician and writer) are already covered by two corresponding sharper Bisexual categories.
If what you want is some verbatim "United States" in the categories, maybe because "American" could be unclear, it's not done, almost all subcats of Category:United States use "American" or the name of the state, e.g., "Actresses from California" => "Women in California" => "California society" => "Society of the Western United States".
If you think that "California" could be unclear, we can move Sasha Grey down to "Actresses from the Greater Los Angeles Area‎", that's not Mexico. Ditto for other American/Californian categories. What we definitely do not need are LGBT categories to get a U.S. nationality. –84.46.53.140 (talk) 12:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Steam5: 3rd opinion invited: –84.46.53.175 (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The request made at Third Opinion has been removed (i.e. declined). Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, Third Opinion requires thorough talk page discussion before seeking assistance. If an editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC) (Not watching this page)[reply]

@TransporterMan: A discussion consisting of an edit summary and a reply on the talk page is thorough enough, it only needs some expert 3rd party input to get a 2:1 rough consensus.
The WP:DISCFAIL essay is apparently a recipe how to drag unwilling users to WP:ANI, maybe helpful for "hot" disputes, because users trying to follow it would be forced to "cool" down. But here folks—maybe it's "only me"—simply don't know how to clean-up BLP categories. –84.46.52.129 (talk) 00:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've downgraded WP:3O to "bogus time waster" for now. Related is⁠sue: #enwiki cats, a never-ending story. –84.46.53.216 (talk) 19:48, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some months later, this is enwiki, they have a rule for everything, I didn't know WP:BLPCAT:

Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief (or lack of such) or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources.

–84.46.53.211 (talk) 18:49, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed Category:Bisexual twitch personalities from Los Angeles and Category:LGBT coffee junkies from California, please don't re-insert the cats before the GA2 review. –84.46.53.211 (talk) 00:24, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@97.113.153.35: The possible BLP vandalism tag is added by an algorithm, the undo was about the missing consensus for your edit. I've reset it again, "narrow" is not always better, clearly she was not only a porn actress. –84.46.53.86 (talk) 08:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also didn't know WP:DUPCAT and the mysteries of non-diffusing subcategories. It means that Category:21st-century American women musicians in addition to Category:21st-century American musicians is not a bug. It also means that enwiki is crazy, but that's no news for me. –84.46.52.214 (talk) 05:05, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved
 – Nobody messed with the cats or MacReady for eight weeks. –84.46.53.249 (talk) 02:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Missing stuff[edit]

Apparently (found in "unarchived" AOTS G4TV videos) she hosted Sexpo Australia in 2009, and was a or the keynote speaker at AEE in 2010. –84.46.52.192 (talk) 14:20, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sexpo fixed here and there, the page was almost killed by a clever vandal. –84.46.52.92 (talk) 03:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the 2010 AVN award video she also said in a published interview that she was married (not only engaged) for some time,[1] but I suggest to ignore this for now, we don't know when this happened, we can only guess (=OR based on one already disqualified TMZ article) when it ended, it's a rathole. –84.46.52.45 (talk) 17:27, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So far I found only .cl/.pe/.ru sources for twitch.tv/SashaGreyStreams outside of her Twitter, not (yet) good enough to mention it on the page, maybe later, if some obvious RS reported it. –84.46.52.103 (talk) 02:07, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's now twitch.tv/SashaGrey and I fixed one video and one playlist description, fortunately nothing to do here so far. Next exercise (for me), figure out why she tries gaming instead of journalism. –84.46.53.116 (talk) 21:23, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added to d:Q2709: Sasha Grey [@SashaGrey] (June 27, 2019). "I'm not going live yet, but I will be live later on" (Tweet) – via Twitter.
–84.46.52.13 (talk) 14:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is Twitch partner a "thing" on enwiki? For her nice Anna Karina memorial on Twitter I guess no.[2] –84.46.52.63 (talk) 13:55, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done based on {{Infobox Twitch streamer}}, "partner" is no "thing", and so far this template doesn't tempt me to embed it here. –84.46.52.46 (talk) 14:44, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
After a direct action I've added the infobox and two statements in #Activism. A self-published video could replace 1 of 3 tweets when self is clear: <ref>Sasha Grey ###### (December 11, 2019). {{YouTube|############|It’s official, I’m a Twitch Partner. Let’s celebrate on another Secret Sauce Stream}}.</ref>
–84.46.53.236 (talk) 03:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC) (redacted potential copyvio in own comment: 84.46.53.42 (talk) 18:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC))[reply]
I'm removed much of the expansion, noting far to much reliance on WP:PROMO, WP:FAN, and adult-film perspectives and sourcing. If there's mainstream coverage that meets WP:BIO, other than for her adult film work, please point it out. --Ronz (talk) 04:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ronz: Apparently we both like the BLP without Twitch EL better, that also resolves your FanPOV consideration for everything older than 2020, i.e., long-standing content covered by RS, arranged for a GA1 and now GA2 nomination since December 2018. If there still is a problem it is limited to how I tried to fix the two statements added yesterday to the lede. –84.46.53.236 (talk) 04:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure you understand my concerns. They could be settled quickly if WP:BIO sources are available, outside of her adult film work. If not, then further trimming of the article is needed. --Ronz (talk) 05:12, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Her career after she left the adult industry was covered in this biography for about ten years, e.g., the actress + model sections are NACTOR + NMODEL (both end up on ENT). These guidelines address mostly the notability of new biographies, not other notable info in an already existing biography.
Various articles about films + music (roughly, notable works, blue wikilink) with Grey as actress or in other roles (producer, writer, singer, etc.) are covered here as parts of her career. Just in case, the BLP was protected until March 22, modifications by IPs were reviewed. –84.46.53.138 (talk) 13:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So if such a source exists, neither of us are aware of it. In that case she's an adult film actress that has made her way into other entertainment venues with only little notability in them. --Ronz (talk) 16:45, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indian IP addition trimmed to one statement.

For some suggestions see #Potentially unnecessary info below. Without counting pre-2019 contributors—you're up against dozens incl. /GA1 for a CCC—one section I can judge is #Books:
Maybe Grey would not be notable as an author if four books were all she ever created, and maybe The Juliette Society is a notable trilogy in its own right. I'm aware of four translations, and the article covers two (Spanish with an image + German with a tweet) to justify "several". Of course the tweet SHOULD be replaced when a better source for the odd German title X (The Mismade Girl) is found. I've created 2 of the 4 redirects with the help of AFC/R.[3] [4] I fixed the first of the trilogy redirects, not only just now.[5]
From my PoV that's all as it should be— AFC/R guarantees four eyes—and not at all related to whose fan I am, check out Emma Blackery for a similar case. –84.46.53.249 (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your comments, nor why you pinged me. I've started a new section about her notability. My concern is that if her areas of notability are unclear, then we can't resolve most POV/NOT-related problems. --Ronz (talk) 18:56, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You added {{fanpov}} after I tried to fix the "Twitch in the lede" issue. If you're satisfied with the current state wrt two tweets (one in #Books for a German translation + one in #Personal life for a charity stream), both to be replaced a.s.a.p., we're ready for this section. In plain DEnglish, I considered that as a personal attack, but will + cannot deny fan. –84.46.53.249 (talk) 19:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Putting a tag on an article is not a personal attack against anyone.
I have fundamental concerns about the article. The article is written from questionable sources, suggesting areas of notability that don't appear properly referenced. --Ronz (talk) 19:30, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I interpret that as the February 5 Twitch issue is in fact resolved, all agree that two primary Twitter sources should be replaced when possible per WP:TWITTER, and my GA quest + your CCC quest are discussed elsewhere on this talk page. –84.46.53.249 (talk) 21:01, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've not actually looked at it in detail, nor expect to have time to do so in the near future. --Ronz (talk) 21:26, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
 – nobody disputed one=last statement in #Activism with a primary source. –84.46.53.42 (talk) 07:46, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Influences[edit]

Should we start a section #Influences for topics like Keisha Grey or this? Please no #Legacy, it drives me mad. –84.46.53.102 (talk) 07:41, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered if she was an early adopter or even the inventor of postmodern feminism in 2011, a category recently added here (not by me). But the article says 1990, with the French sources (plausible for my favourite cinephile coffee junkie) going back to the 80s. Of course she stays in sex-positive feminists together with "bad feminist" Madonna.[6] –84.46.53.116 (talk) 16:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Directly related series of five tweets,[7] I always felt that "interpreting" her interview on this BLP was suspicious, quote: I was afraid of being labeled as a feminist, because I didn’t agree with many statements I saw. Later, I declared that I’m a post-modern feminist- this ain’t your grandma’s feminism. I still stand by this. –84.46.52.152 (talk) 14:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
 – No reply in over 7 months, but postmodern feminism is okay. –84.46.53.249 (talk) 02:16, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PH/insights/2018-year-in-review[edit]

At the moment the global PH spam block won't let me post an EL mentioning that Grey was their most searched for star in 2018 in three countries (and #5 in Italy) for 2018. I've started a WP:RS/N investigation required for a white list suggestion of those PH/insights on MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. –84.46.53.211 (talk) 14:39, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Newslinger found a decent WP:42 source for this fun fact, if nobody objects I'll add that here later. –84.46.52.229 (talk) 02:42, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tiny little mazes, all different: WT:P*#Pornhub Insights. –84.46.52.214 (talk) 03:36, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Forwarded to MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2020/01#pornhub.com/insights, IIRC that's my second enwiki MediaWiki talk contribution after getting a decent target for RFC magic links on tools.ietf.org ~14 years ago. –84.46.52.84 (talk) 05:12, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When the WHITELIST entry is archived I plan to resolve it as suggested (+ update the project talk section.) –84.46.53.138 (talk) 11:37, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First class service by ClueBot III, normally I have to update archived links manually, thanks. –84.46.53.42 (talk) 06:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
 – after two months. –84.46.53.42 (talk) 07:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like unencyclopedic trivia to me, promoting PornHub. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 04:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fun fact is not the same as trivia. You claim that she is "only notable" for her 3.5 years as a former porn star, the fact that she was still "most searched for" in 3 countries 8 years later is relevant. Pornhub Insights is not better or worse than Politicon for political activists or Social in the City for social media celebrities. If you personally dislike "anything p*rn" it's perfectly fine, but please don't edit with that bias, try to look at it neutrally or ignore it, it's just one of many things notable folks do professionally, like sports, films, music, programming, whatever. –84.46.53.188 (talk) 05:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked for sources demonstrating notability outside her adult entertainment career, that are not from adult entertainment sources. None have been provided, right?
More in-world trivia is just more WP:SOAP. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing whatsoever to do with WP:SOAP, what should it "promote" for a former adult actress for a value of "former" at about ten years, published more than a year ago? Her continued popularity in Eastern Europe is an ordinary fact supported by RS. I've stripped Italy as irrelevant detail for the ENT "large fanbase or cult following" in Eastern Europe. –84.46.52.20 (talk) 20:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We disagree. BLP requires such material be removed and not restored until there's consensus to do so.
I've removed a bit more, as more of the same. There's also POV/OR problems by claiming that the (poor) sources indicate some sort of continued popularity.
I'll add WP:FANCRUFT too. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Newslinger:, could you weigh in, since this started from something the ip claims you pointed out, without a diff though. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The archived WHITELIST suggestion has a link to the archived RSN discussion. –84.46.52.20 (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What am I looking for in that discussion that even suggests we should be promoting PornHub like this? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The bottom starting with the last bullet I would consider Pornhub Insights a reliable primary source etc. There's no "PH promo" in the statement, it's an ordinary wikilink explaining who+what. –84.46.52.20 (talk) 22:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The source still looks like a puff piece to me. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 00:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "In 2018 she was still the top most searched for adult star in Belarus, Russia, and the Ukraine according to Pornhub Insights": if the Kyiv Post article is the only cited source for Grey's popularity on Pornhub, then we can only mention that Grey was the top Pornhub performer in Ukraine, and not in Belarus or Russia, since only Ukraine is mentioned in the article. The Pornhub Insights article is required for us to mention her standing in Belarus and Russia. Either the Pornhub Insights link needs to be approved for the whitelist, or if that's not possible, Belarus and Russia should be removed from the sentence to meet the verifiability policy. — Newslinger talk 09:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removed Russia + Belarus. This source now has three functions: Let readers know that she was still popular outside of the US in 2018. Let them also know about the weird List of premature obituaries, cf. #Obscure "blpo" lists. The incident is mentioned in the article if readers bother to check the source. Advanced readers might even check PH/insights for more and find it.
The /GA1 reviewer was unhappy that the "premature obituary" wasn't mentioned here, and the nominator (me) refused to add it as trivia about a Sasha Serowa (Ukrainian for Grey) not obviously relevant here. OTOH I was in the rough of a consensus on dewiki about this. To avoid the same issue in the next GA review I now simply dump the obituary list in #See also, not everything needs prose in the article. –84.46.52.151 (talk) 12:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As far as GA review is concerned, I consider it SOAP that should be removed. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:29, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obscure "blpo" lists[edit]

Grey is listed on various more or less obscure lists, not all of them wikilinked in the article. It's a BLP policy issue if these lists contain obsolete claims such as "pornographic actress" (skipping the general "actress") or atheist (instead of the far better sourced "existentialist", which is no proper subset of "atheist"). I don't think that we should add all these lists to #See also. Maybe we can collect the known lists here:

As "DEnglish" contributor I'm amazed how enwiki ignores various "lessons learned from 1933-45". –84.46.53.107 (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC) [reply]

updated –84.46.52.205 (talk) 09:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
sorted –84.46.52.173 (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
+pets –84.46.52.170 (talk) 00:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
updated –84.46.52.225 (talk) 11:35, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Layout[edit]

The layout of this article sucks, ten or more h2 sections are a red flag for me, at the moment we are at eleven h2 sections. The unclear #Background h2 could be an #Early life h3 in a new #Life h2 together with the #Personal life (as is, h3 instead of h2) and the #Activism (h3 as is, but not under #Career).
The unclear #Media Recognition h3 under #Career h2 could belong to the #Reception h2, but actually it is about her 2006…2011 career as porn star, maybe this section should be renamed to #Adult industry, after all she was not only a porn star in this period, but also a director, and founded at least one model agency LA factory girls. –84.46.52.173 (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Background" renamed to #Early life as on many BLPs: This small step does not solve the "eleven h2" issue. –84.46.53.116 (talk) 16:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The #Reception was a paragraph in #Personal life, I moved it back. Likewise #Activism was a sub-section of #Personal life and doesn't belong to #Career, also moved back. Of course "personal" vs. "career" isn't always clear cut for an influencer aka celebrity, but the #Activism in one set with #Books + #Music + #Acting + #Modeling was just odd. The unclear #Media coverage is now sorted chronologically into #Model (Richardson, Penthouse, Playboy) and #Career (Sexpo etc.) –84.46.53.138 (talk) 07:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
 – One month later + no other comment = BOLD + {{Sofixit}}. –84.46.53.249 (talk) 20:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mass d:Q2709[edit]

For the height removed by Ronz from the infobox I checked that the lost reference still exists on d:Q2709, it does, no problem- However, I had to remove the mass again, please put the item in your watchlist if you are also active on WikiData. The WD:Living people policy is not yet translated to Russian, and folks don't get why importing the mass from ruwiki with an ancient reference is a bad idea.
BTW, the GA status on ruwiki, but not (yet) here, inspired my GA quest in December 2018. I've interrupted the current nomination until the {{fanpov}} issue is solved, @Steam5, Morbidthoughts, Britishfinance, and Bilorv: pinging a sample of four users who might be able to answer questions about the history of this biography before December 2018. –84.46.53.138 (talk) 09:08, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I confused GB fan and Britishfinance, the removed height passes as a rough consensus. –84.46.53.138 (talk) 10:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem - article is starting to look very good, the fanpov is a little harsh, however, I think reducing it down will help a lot (e.g. including every known sliver of ref about a BLP is a classic fanpov sign). Well done. Britishfinance (talk) 10:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have radical ideas how to cleanup 1 + 2 + 3 albums (not only) on Pendu Sound Recordings, i.e., one article not obviously passing NALBUM should be better than three. But here I'm lost with what was a good old consensus excl. clear cases in the archives, what was always a bad idea —considering "has wikilink" as relevant—and what is "only me" as a "fanboy" (=EL to a YT playlist in a comment, and from the YT channel it would take two clicks to find my old dead 2006 + inactive 2011 Wikimedia accounts.) –84.46.53.138 (talk) 10:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Infoboxes are for information directly related to her notability, as well as basic factual information that's considered encyclopedic. Height seems irrelevant. --Ronz (talk) 16:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
^.^b E.g., Hannah Witton. One year ago two editors here disagreed about weight+height, and I suggested to keep only the height as a compromise, because it is at least no moving target. –84.46.53.138 (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. Thanks for pointing it out. Yes, height varies little during adulthood. Notability aside, it's sometimes misreported when publicists think a different height would be better. --Ronz (talk) 21:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let's say that this is also resolved wrt weight+height, i.e., so far three contributors discuss it at the WD idea of a VP.
The {{fanpov}} issue went to #Is Grey notable for anything other than her adult film work.
I'll reactivate the GAN when the unrelated PH issue is resolved: Not waiting for a rewrite of a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. –84.46.53.249 (talk) 21:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
 – –84.46.53.42 (talk) 07:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially unnecessary info[edit]

Top-down speed reading: Lede, summarizes the body as it should. Early life, short enough. Career intro, waiting for the WP:RS/N approved RS, otherwise ready. Modeling, "footwear brand Forfex" without wikilink isn't relevant. Richardson's magazine A4 is suspicious, but the sources are good. Otherwise the Modeling incl. various notable artists is as it should be. Disclaimer.

Acting is as discussed in /GA1, nothing to do. Music is also as discussed in /GA1 with aTelecine details moved to aTelecine in GOCE (after GA1), but the Lee "Scratch" Perry trivia isn't relevant from my PoV. Books is as it should be. In Personal life "and compared her with Taylor Swift" can go. In Activism the 2011 "school reading" scandal is not more that interesting as it presumably was nine years ago, but I already trimmed this—from a former Controversies section for this incident—as far as possible without losing context. –84.46.53.138 (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Removed Taylor Swift assuming that this was only me.
  • Removed Italian footwear Forfex, keeping the source to support "various clients".
  • The Lee "Scratch" Perry trivia needs a consensus, lots of contributors struggled to get that right.
–84.46.53.249 (talk) 20:07, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Philip DeFranco 2016 video covering "continued popularity" is gone, the Kyiv Post 2018 article is far better better for this purpose.
–84.46.52.20 (talk) 21:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion above at Talk:Sasha_Grey#PH/insights/2018-year-in-review. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:00, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up question, do you have an opinion about the Lee "Scratch" Perry info? –84.46.52.20 (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
More WP:SOAP. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:31, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is Grey notable for anything other than her adult film work[edit]

I'm repeating this question because the answer determines the focus of this article. Are there any mainstream sources (specifically not from the adult entertainment industry and their promoters) that meet WP:BIO showing notability for anything other than her adult film work? --Ronz (talk) 18:53, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Already answered for #Books near the end of #Missing stuff above, that section also mentions NACTOR + NMODEL. Her mainstream acting + modeling + writing is covered by ordinary mainstream sources, and it makes no sense to look at it in isolation. Would she be a notable erotic author without her adult entertainment background? Maybe not, toss a coin.
Is her modeling for notable artists, fashion magazines, and adult magazines related to this adult entertainment background? Of course it is, e.g., the Girls in the Naked Girl Business series by Zak Smith is not about his Role-playing game activities. For some of these artists I'm not sure how notable they actually are without Sasha Grey.
Is her acting related to her adult entertainment background? Of course it is, in the filmography you can see that she played fictionalized versions of herself, appeared in documentaries about pornography, and played other roles in independent films, related to the fact that she's a cinéaste, right down to her first alias Anna Karina in adult entertainment. –84.46.53.249 (talk) 19:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the books: I see nothing but promotional references, either from the adult entertainment industry or the publishing industry, or their promoters. Am I missing something? --Ronz (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The section has 12 references + 1 photo after I just removed two dubious references. Tweet + photo ignored, because we had this in #Missing stuff, they support "various languages". Clearly XBIZ is "the industry", but not a bad source, and my browser counts five occurrences of XBIZ on the complete page, three references + one award + the same award in #Awards, no UNDUE in sight.
The Pendu Sound excerpt is not strictly necessary, I used it to replace a bad RS/P HuffPost or Artinfo reference for the same excerpt. One Google Books reference confirms publisher + ISBN for Neü Sex, not good, not bad. The self-published site added by me is a primary source "about the author", as the URL says, with better info about her works than on her official site.
I failed to find a better source for book III when I added that, later I found some reviews for book II. That was in the /GA1 frenzy, the reviewer (+ RSN, I asked) didn't like Renee Ruin and another blogger, all I had was "other uses elsewhere". The remaining 7 references are perfectly normal from my PoV, six are wikilnked (BlackBook + Portland Mercury + Karley Sciortino + AXS twice, same author attributed + Esquire), one forbookssake.net is admittedly only used twice on enwiki. –84.46.53.249 (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's more than a year later, and I have the same concerns. I think it's time to just remove it as fan-pov content inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. --Hipal (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remove what specifically? Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Remove emphasis that makes it appear otherwise, like [8].
For example, the first sentence.[9] --Hipal (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It should be cut down although the abundance of the reliable sources since 2009 talk about her projects in the context of being a former pornographic actress.[10][11] Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:27, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the articles. The first looks like coverage of her book, the second an interview promoting her talk show. Not great material to work from. --Hipal (talk) 18:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's much more coverage cited within the article. The supermajority of RS cover her activities and career post-porn. They wouldn't cover her without the actual mainstream activities. They usually mention the porn past as a stigma to overcome. Removing the non-porn and attributing it as fan POV is contributing to that stigma.Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If there are any references at all demonstrating long-lasting notability for anything beyond her adult film career, I'm not seeing them.
My impressions as far as musician, acting, modeling, and writing go: They're all derived/built upon her adult film success. The music and writing appear to have gone nowhere. The modeling is less obvious. Again, I'm seeing nothing but very poor references across the board in all areas. --Hipal (talk) 19:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the wording of the title introduction is an issue as to why there's the dispute in the first place? I suggest "is an American actress, model, writer, musician, and former pornographic actress" can be changed into something like "is a former pornographic actress, who is currently <<Insert Roles>>". Difference between these two lines is the person is being acknowledged for the most prominent role he or she had ever done by having that role being the first one to be mentioned but at the same time not ignoring that the person has been active/involved in a different role. This, by the way, is what news media as a whole has been referring to the person as: "former pornstar who has <<Insert Roles>>" and not "<<Insert Roles>>, and former pornstar" which this Wiki article currently is doing. 116.89.34.63 (talk) 03:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I believe it is correct that the former career is listed last in terms of reverse timeline. Also putting it last still puts proper emphasis on importance as being listed last can be seen as more important than third and onward like in authorship and tv and film credits. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how to give emphasis to her adult film work, nor how to select which areas of work to include. Whatever we choose, we need to make it clear why so other editors understand when they consider any changes. --Hipal (talk) 16:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked BLPN to weigh in.[12] Beyond that, we may have to go to an RFC. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Twitch[edit]

The Twitch streaming needs discussion and perhaps more weight in the article. The two references recently offered [13] appear unusable per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_306#Sportskeeda and WP:FORBESCON --Hipal (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Film Quarterly[edit]

Independent Film Quarterly (IFQ) was "soft-deleted" (=AFD handled as expired PROD) recently. There are 33 articles mentioning IFQ in plain text, presumably former wikilinks. For Sasha Grey this affects work=Independent Film Quarterly in two references. In a quick plausibility check on google I found only two potential sources to justify a REFUND on the first five pages with search hits, but below THREE I'm not planning that, especially not without logging in, YMMV.[14] [15]
For info courtesy ping @JzG and Sandstein: The rename in 2019 was my idea. –84.46.53.188 (talk) 01:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sasha_Grey&oldid=1195072879"