This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Janine Lindemulder article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Lindemulder is not notable as an actor. Her acting is not sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia entry. Lindemulder is notable for her career in pornography. It isn't accurate to categorize her in Category:Bisexual American actors, alongside professional actors such as Joan Crawford, Greta Garbo and James Dean. Joie de Vivre 18:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Use_of_categories (an official policy):
It is my opinion that in this instance, a public sexual performance is not a substitute for public self-identification. I do believe there can be some leniency for historical figures. However, in the case of a contemporary person who makes money from sexual performances, the requirement for a public statement of sexual orientation is especially important. A public sexual performance is not necessarily indicative of sexual orientation, and should not be interpreted as such without supporting evidence. See gay-for-pay for more on this phenomenon. Joie de Vivre 18:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I've protected this article until you all can decide on which categories are appropriate. Please work together and seek consensus. - Will Beback · † · 20:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Since everyone seems so agreeable I've removed the protection. - Will Beback · † · 04:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
an interesting story. please consider adding. Kingturtle ( talk) 15:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Curious. Apparently court records, which are not subject to interpretation or qualification, are nonetheless inappropriate here because a third-party has not "reported" the same information. In other words, information is not deemed accurate or verifiable unless it's on the internet, even though you can walk down to the courthouse and view it there (or, in my case, log onto a restricted-access website to view court records). Consequently, readers are denied access to current, correct, and readily verifiable information because it lacks a hyperlink. Worse, the removal of that information is undertaken by people who have no actual knowledge as to whether their edits are warranted or correct - and I would like to think accuracy mattered. Apparently it does not. For certain, the legitimacy of the entire Wiki project is called into question by ignoring public record information unless and until an untested third-party reports on it. In other words, the readily available court file is not a verifiable source, but a newspaper article that, perhaps inaccurately, reports on the same court file is deemed a verifiable source. Lawduck ( talk) 03:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Citations to the texts of court decisions, judgments, orders, etc., are acceptable in Wikipedia as long as the rules on Verifiability and No Original Research, etc., are followed. Wikipedia is full of them, regardless of whether they are available on the internet. Citations to texts of court decisions are generally primary sources. There is a tendency in Wikipedia to favor secondary sources over primary sources, but there is obviously no prohibition on using primary sources. Unless things have changed, I know of no Wikipedia rule that says that information is not deemed accurate or verifiable merely because it's not available for free on the internet.
I have noticed an erroneous tendency among a few editors to equate citations to primary sources with prohibited "original research." That is incorrect. The mere use of a primary source does not, in and of itself, constitute original research. I'll go a step further: Even an article that is heavily weighted with primary sourcing might contain original research -- or it might not. Famspear ( talk) 02:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Yikes. Now I'm reading the article. We have problems. First, this lady was not charged with tax evasion. She did not plead guilty to tax evasion. I just checked the docket.
This is a common problem in Wikipedia and in media articles on federal criminal tax matters. The media (and, by extension, Wikipedia) tends to misuse the term "tax evasion" to mean in general any federal tax crime. If I were her lawyer, I would be all over this.
I'll post further explanation shortly. Yours, Famspear ( talk) 05:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've made some corrections. First, under U.S. federal law, "tax evasion" is a felony. There is no such thing as "misdemeanor" federal tax evasion. The subject of this article was not charged with tax evasion, which is 26 USC 7201. She was charged with willful failure to pay tax, which is 26 USC 7203, which is a misdemeanor. And she pleaded guilty to the 7203.
This has been a recurring problem in Wikipedia, as members of the media chronically and incorrectly refer to all federal tax crimes as "tax evasion." Tax evasion is much more serious, will get you up to five years in prison, and is harder to prove, than a section 7203 "willful failure to pay" (for which the maximum is one year in prison).
Unfortunately, one of the secondary sources, an article, uses the term "tax evasion" in its title. Obviously I cannot "change the title" of the sourcing article that mentions "tax evasion", even though the title is wrong. I deleted the term everywhere else I could find it.
Fortuitously, this is another example of why I contend that primary sourcing is more reliable than secondary sourcing in certain specific areas of Wikipedia, especially in the area of U.S. federal tax law. The idea of preferring secondary sourcing over primary sourcing sort of breaks down a bit -- when you see the errors that have been made in Wikipedia articles on living persons. On technical legal federal tax matters, there is just no satisfactory reason not to double check the actual court records (the primary sources) to verify the accuracy of the secondary sources. Famspear ( talk) 05:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
For a related, and somewhat recent, discussion of the problem of Wikipedia (and news media) misuse of the terms "tax evader" and "tax evasion" and how it was handled with respect to Wikipedia categories, see: [1]. Yours, Famspear ( talk) 06:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
We have a problem. avn.com may be generally a reliable source, but they seem to have revamped their site, and the links are dead, and apparently not available from the Wayback Machine. Also, justjanine.com seems to be a personal site of a friend, and it's credibility, even under WP:SELFPUB, is questionable, she being not in a good "position" to complain. (And I came here from the tax side, also; however, I've seen tax articles with the word "nipple" before. Consider the famous case deciding that breast implants can be a tax deductible business expense....) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
It is noted in the beginning that she had graduated high school while at the end of the article she was going to get her GED. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.173.251.226 ( talk) 04:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I also noticed this and made an edit, but it was reverted like lightning by user:A8UDI. Leaving a school and graduating are not the same thing. -- 72.28.181.123 ( talk) 22:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I edited the "another" out of the "another convicted felon" reference to her current husband. Despite the claim of the referenced article, the subject of this entry was convicted of a misdemeanor, not a felony, as per the above discussion. Wilsonchas ( talk) 21:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
The barnstar below is given in recognition of this edit.
![]() |
The Working Man's Barnstar |
I just want to publicly recognize the editor who so thoughtfully added the tag to the first section of this article. I'm sure that, without this insightful contribution, no one could have seen that this eight-word section was in need of expansion, but now, thanks to the wonderful tagging job by this brilliant and doggedly determined editor, we can all see the need to add more. Bravo, Oh Great Editor, bravo! Your tireless tagging will no doubt help us to achieve the perfect encyclopedia within mere weeks, if not days. HuskyHuskie ( talk) 02:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC) |
Why inst that section deleted and merged with the introduction, it not likely to get much longer, it may be redundant. TheHappiestCritic ( talk) 21:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- an IP editor has been adding that Janine Lindemulder is a bassist - there is no evidence for this - Discogs lists her only music-related credit as appearing on the sleeve of Enemy of the State by Blink-182 - WP:BLPSOURCE says, "material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion." - unless a reliable source ( WP:RS, WP:VERIFY) can be found to confirm that she is a bass player the content should not be included in the article - Epinoia ( talk) 16:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Janine Lindemulder article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Lindemulder is not notable as an actor. Her acting is not sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia entry. Lindemulder is notable for her career in pornography. It isn't accurate to categorize her in Category:Bisexual American actors, alongside professional actors such as Joan Crawford, Greta Garbo and James Dean. Joie de Vivre 18:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Use_of_categories (an official policy):
It is my opinion that in this instance, a public sexual performance is not a substitute for public self-identification. I do believe there can be some leniency for historical figures. However, in the case of a contemporary person who makes money from sexual performances, the requirement for a public statement of sexual orientation is especially important. A public sexual performance is not necessarily indicative of sexual orientation, and should not be interpreted as such without supporting evidence. See gay-for-pay for more on this phenomenon. Joie de Vivre 18:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I've protected this article until you all can decide on which categories are appropriate. Please work together and seek consensus. - Will Beback · † · 20:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Since everyone seems so agreeable I've removed the protection. - Will Beback · † · 04:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
an interesting story. please consider adding. Kingturtle ( talk) 15:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Curious. Apparently court records, which are not subject to interpretation or qualification, are nonetheless inappropriate here because a third-party has not "reported" the same information. In other words, information is not deemed accurate or verifiable unless it's on the internet, even though you can walk down to the courthouse and view it there (or, in my case, log onto a restricted-access website to view court records). Consequently, readers are denied access to current, correct, and readily verifiable information because it lacks a hyperlink. Worse, the removal of that information is undertaken by people who have no actual knowledge as to whether their edits are warranted or correct - and I would like to think accuracy mattered. Apparently it does not. For certain, the legitimacy of the entire Wiki project is called into question by ignoring public record information unless and until an untested third-party reports on it. In other words, the readily available court file is not a verifiable source, but a newspaper article that, perhaps inaccurately, reports on the same court file is deemed a verifiable source. Lawduck ( talk) 03:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Citations to the texts of court decisions, judgments, orders, etc., are acceptable in Wikipedia as long as the rules on Verifiability and No Original Research, etc., are followed. Wikipedia is full of them, regardless of whether they are available on the internet. Citations to texts of court decisions are generally primary sources. There is a tendency in Wikipedia to favor secondary sources over primary sources, but there is obviously no prohibition on using primary sources. Unless things have changed, I know of no Wikipedia rule that says that information is not deemed accurate or verifiable merely because it's not available for free on the internet.
I have noticed an erroneous tendency among a few editors to equate citations to primary sources with prohibited "original research." That is incorrect. The mere use of a primary source does not, in and of itself, constitute original research. I'll go a step further: Even an article that is heavily weighted with primary sourcing might contain original research -- or it might not. Famspear ( talk) 02:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Yikes. Now I'm reading the article. We have problems. First, this lady was not charged with tax evasion. She did not plead guilty to tax evasion. I just checked the docket.
This is a common problem in Wikipedia and in media articles on federal criminal tax matters. The media (and, by extension, Wikipedia) tends to misuse the term "tax evasion" to mean in general any federal tax crime. If I were her lawyer, I would be all over this.
I'll post further explanation shortly. Yours, Famspear ( talk) 05:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've made some corrections. First, under U.S. federal law, "tax evasion" is a felony. There is no such thing as "misdemeanor" federal tax evasion. The subject of this article was not charged with tax evasion, which is 26 USC 7201. She was charged with willful failure to pay tax, which is 26 USC 7203, which is a misdemeanor. And she pleaded guilty to the 7203.
This has been a recurring problem in Wikipedia, as members of the media chronically and incorrectly refer to all federal tax crimes as "tax evasion." Tax evasion is much more serious, will get you up to five years in prison, and is harder to prove, than a section 7203 "willful failure to pay" (for which the maximum is one year in prison).
Unfortunately, one of the secondary sources, an article, uses the term "tax evasion" in its title. Obviously I cannot "change the title" of the sourcing article that mentions "tax evasion", even though the title is wrong. I deleted the term everywhere else I could find it.
Fortuitously, this is another example of why I contend that primary sourcing is more reliable than secondary sourcing in certain specific areas of Wikipedia, especially in the area of U.S. federal tax law. The idea of preferring secondary sourcing over primary sourcing sort of breaks down a bit -- when you see the errors that have been made in Wikipedia articles on living persons. On technical legal federal tax matters, there is just no satisfactory reason not to double check the actual court records (the primary sources) to verify the accuracy of the secondary sources. Famspear ( talk) 05:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
For a related, and somewhat recent, discussion of the problem of Wikipedia (and news media) misuse of the terms "tax evader" and "tax evasion" and how it was handled with respect to Wikipedia categories, see: [1]. Yours, Famspear ( talk) 06:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
We have a problem. avn.com may be generally a reliable source, but they seem to have revamped their site, and the links are dead, and apparently not available from the Wayback Machine. Also, justjanine.com seems to be a personal site of a friend, and it's credibility, even under WP:SELFPUB, is questionable, she being not in a good "position" to complain. (And I came here from the tax side, also; however, I've seen tax articles with the word "nipple" before. Consider the famous case deciding that breast implants can be a tax deductible business expense....) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
It is noted in the beginning that she had graduated high school while at the end of the article she was going to get her GED. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.173.251.226 ( talk) 04:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I also noticed this and made an edit, but it was reverted like lightning by user:A8UDI. Leaving a school and graduating are not the same thing. -- 72.28.181.123 ( talk) 22:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I edited the "another" out of the "another convicted felon" reference to her current husband. Despite the claim of the referenced article, the subject of this entry was convicted of a misdemeanor, not a felony, as per the above discussion. Wilsonchas ( talk) 21:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
The barnstar below is given in recognition of this edit.
![]() |
The Working Man's Barnstar |
I just want to publicly recognize the editor who so thoughtfully added the tag to the first section of this article. I'm sure that, without this insightful contribution, no one could have seen that this eight-word section was in need of expansion, but now, thanks to the wonderful tagging job by this brilliant and doggedly determined editor, we can all see the need to add more. Bravo, Oh Great Editor, bravo! Your tireless tagging will no doubt help us to achieve the perfect encyclopedia within mere weeks, if not days. HuskyHuskie ( talk) 02:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC) |
Why inst that section deleted and merged with the introduction, it not likely to get much longer, it may be redundant. TheHappiestCritic ( talk) 21:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- an IP editor has been adding that Janine Lindemulder is a bassist - there is no evidence for this - Discogs lists her only music-related credit as appearing on the sleeve of Enemy of the State by Blink-182 - WP:BLPSOURCE says, "material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion." - unless a reliable source ( WP:RS, WP:VERIFY) can be found to confirm that she is a bass player the content should not be included in the article - Epinoia ( talk) 16:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)