Talk:Celebrity sex tape

message: I wanted to put forth whether certain people removed from the list should be removed. Most notably the ones taken off by Yamla and the reason given that there is not a page made up for them on Wikipedia so that should exclude them. I feel that if its a leaked tape and they are semi famous then their inclusion is note worthy. More importantly I feel judging on the fact a Wikipedia page has not been setup for them not enough to discredit them from the list of celeb sex tapes?
Anyone else want to comment?
Lummie 03:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your comments, Lummie.  While I certainly think they don't warrant a mention on this page unless they have their own wikipedia article, I'll certainly listen if enough people disagree.  --Yamla 05:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is very easy to create a page for semi celebs, it takes less than a minute to create a stub-article. If the criterium for being mentioned on this page is having your own article on Wikipedia, I will create an article for the TV-reporter Allison Williams as soon as I notice someone removed her from this page. Ik.pas.aan 15:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Ugh, this is a concept that's abused far too often. Notability on WP and notability in the real world are two completely different things. The lack of an article does not mean that someone is not famous or non-notable, its just means that 1) no one has bothered to put together the citable sources to write an article, or, 2) there is not enough reliable sources to create an article. This is just plain arrogant and elitist to assume. Wikipedia is just not that important to make this claim. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of certain "Celebs" 

message: Maybe we should divide these tapes into three groups: Confirmed tapes - those like the Pamela Anderson-Tommy Lee video, where nobody is disputed the existence of the tape; Rumored tapes - for the majority of tapes where claims have been made but the identities of the celebrities has neither been proven or disproven; and Fraudulant tapes - for cases like the Alyson Hanigan tape which have been proven fake. 
I don't think we should eliminate any tapes from being mentioned - even those known to be fake. In all cases the rumors are still circulating on the internet. We should provide the factual information about these tapes rather than ignore their existence. MK2 05:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like that idea because I find there are sometimes reports of certain tapes like Britney Spears that create news and whether they exist or not shouldn't be dismissed because there is no evidence of them. Lummie 06:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree also. Best idea on this discussion page so far IMHO. Please implement  Ik.pas.aan 23:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I added the splits so hopefully that helps the article Lummie 14:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A suggestion 

message: There is a tape going around on file sharing networks that is supposedly of Avril Lavigne, I can't find any other information (not that I've actually looked hard at the moment), and given teh above conversation, it would warrant being a Rumoured tape. I will try to find some any sites mentioning this rumour, then add it if theres anything worth adding.
:I can hardly find anything out there on the alleged tape so I don't think it warrants an mention as Rumour. I feel there must be some foundation to a rumour like that such as its a widespread rumour or has gained some media attention, other wise it could be rumoured any celebrity has a sex tape out there. Lummie 03:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I couldn't find anything either, but there is definatley a video claiming to be of her, but of course if there's no information it's pointless mentioning it Cryomaniac 18:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Avril Lavigne

message: Is this vandalism or is the section removed for a valid reason? Please advise. --Einsidler 12:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism query 

message: I've removed most of the entries in this article under the "Biographies of living persons" policy, which states: Editors should remove any controversial material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. I understand that much of what I deleted can be proven true, but in the meantime, it can't stay here. I have no issue with any of those entries returning if they're properly sourced. Thanks. | Mr. Darcy talk 17:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with these deletions for several reasons, primarily because it's not appropriate to delete 90% of an article without discussing it on the talk page first, and secondly because most of the sex tapes mentioned are well known to exist, even if there's no reliable print source definitively listing them. (For example, you deleted the reference to "One Night In Paris", of which there is a cover shot on this article's page, and which can be bought from most Adult Shops!) I accept that not all of these entries can be conclusively proven, but the best thing to do is to identify which ones CAN be positively cited or are well known to exist, and remove the others- not just wipe all of them and replace them later. This will lead to people coming to the article and saying "How come they don't have the Paris Hilton/Abi Titmuss/Mimi Macpherson tape listed here?" and adding it anyway. Easier to avoid the problems by working on the page gradually, IMHO. --Commander Zulu 00:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I understand your thinking, in this case, there's no wiggle room. It's not appropriate to delete 90% of an article without discussing it on the talk page first would be true if the page wasn't violating a crucial policy that is quite strict on matters like this. I agree that some users will add back these items without sourcing, but it's on us to delete such entries. We can't just leave entries that we believe to be valid if they're not sourced. Sourcing is mandatory here; no source, no content. | Mr. Darcy talk 01:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How does one source something generally obtained from Peer-to-Peer Filesharing Networks and the like? --Commander Zulu 03:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My guess is that all of the true sex tapes will be documented somewhere in news articles, perhaps on entertainment news sites like E! Online, but often in mainstream papers. | Mr. Darcy talk 05:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: "Common sense" - however you're defining it - does not trump WP:BLP: controversial or contentious material MUST be sourced. Period. | Mr. Darcy talk 04:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand where you're coming from, but two things need clarifying still - i) where the heading is clearly stating fake/fraud tapes, surely the proof need not be as rigorous. We are after all saying the celebrity did not do this tape ! (can Wiki still be still be sued for that ?) For instance, if (eg) E!Online stated there was a Hannigan sextape, but it was fake, is that an anti-proof ?! ii) What is to be done where a conclusive proof (either for or against the existence of a tape) can be sourced, but due to explicit content a link referencing it cannot be listed ? The Yeti 19:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Thats a BLP violation also. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Instead of a one line replies all the time, please elaborate. I raised a number of points above that deserve a better discussion. And don't just quote the policy (I can read that for myself), but prove why it is a violation. As in all things, it is NOT just black and white. Whatever your status on Wikipedia, you can't just law down the law without arguing your point. Or are you going to delete all the headings above as well ? Wikipedia is a consensus site. The Yeti 22:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a consensus site when there's not a policy being violated. Writing "Alyson Hannigan sextape" without reliable sourcing would violate BLP, blatantly. Even putting it on the talk page is forbidden under BLP. And yes, thanks, I'm going to delete those entries above. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When I was at university, I was repeatedly told that we did not need to cite things which where Common Knowledge. It is common knowledge that R. Kelly, Abi Titmuss, and Mimi MacPherson made sex tapes, just as even your grandparents are probably aware Paris Hilton has a tape circulating of her doing some rather unladylike things in night-vision. And why do you care so much about this BLP policy? It's not like any of these people are on WP (I'd be very surprised if Paris Hilton or Britney Spears even know WP exists!). You're the only one here who cares about this "policy", and quite frankly, I think you're being far too quick with the delete button. IT IS NOT CONTROVERSIAL IF EVERYONE KNOWS THESE TAPES EXIST. Listing a Sex Tape featuring Angelina Jolie and Vince Vaughan, for example (to pick two names at random), would be controversial because it hasn't conclusively been proven to exist. But most of the sex tapes listed here prior to MrDarcy's deletion spree were either in the "Common Knowledge" category of existence, or Clearly Labelled as being Fake/Fraudulent. I just don't see how that's a violation of the policy, and I think most of us here would like a better explanation than "Because I say so" or "Because a policy that none of us had any input on says so". --Commander Zulu 00:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An "open secret" is not quite the same thing as "everyone knows".  Pretty much all of Hollywood knew Rock Hudson was a flaming queen, but if any of them said it in front of a reporter, there would've been hell to pay.  Ford MF 01:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: You can skirt the issue all you want by attacking me, but the bottom line is that we have to obey the policy (and as an admin, I'm expected to uphold it). "Common knowledge" is not sufficient for Wikipedia on these matters. If "everyone knows these tapes exist," then it shouldn't be hard to find a citation, should it? | Mr. Darcy talk 00:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't think I'm attacking you- I'm not. I'm attacking your implementation of this "policy" without any prior discussion or input from anyone else. And as for cites- well, I'm not particularly keen on wading through vapid celebrity gossip websites in the hope of catching a mention of a particular sex tape. --Commander Zulu 00:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I seriously think you need to bring in other senior admins to support your argument before you just go deleting everything. It really needs more than one person's opinion/interpretation of the policy. And it is just your interpretation - I interpret it differently. To use your example, Writing "Alyson Hannigan sextape" without reliable sourcing would violate BLP, blatantly. I would disagree - it is not blatant or obvious that it does violate the BLP in this case, as I have discussed above (but which you've declined to directly comment on - exactly who's skirting issues?). I mean, how can we possibly discuss the validity of an entry if you can't mention any names, and someone just decides to wipe any mentions before a valid discussion can take place ? The Yeti 02:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Admins do not need to post a heads-up when correcting gross violations of WP policy.  Sucks, but there you have it.  Probably a better use of everyone's time here would be in tracking down news references on the sex tapes in question, rather than debating Mr. Darcy's clearly in-policy actions.    Ford MF 01:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Even admins are not infallible or beyond reproach. They need to argue the point, not duck it like a jobsworth by saying a 'rule is a rule'. What is at question here is whether there is actually a gross violation of the rules just by saying a celebs name, even when stating the tape is fake. And if you can't even mention names, who is going to go look for references if they don't know who to look for ?  PS I've moved the Mimi reference below as its a different issue, and comes into the definition debate The Yeti 02:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Mr Darcy, with regards to your personal message saying I have made a personal attacks on you, please advise where ? I have (along with others) disputed your interpretation of the policy, asked for elaborations on your POV, asked you to answered the points I raised, and made some general comments on the powers of admins. I have made no comment on you, your intelligence, or anything else deemed as personal. Go read the examples in the WP:NPA. Making a reference to blocking me is not fairplay in this context. The Yeti 03:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really no wiggle room here, trust me.  Speaking as someone who was once banned indefinitely (I was innocent!) by Wikipedia's chief legal counsel because of this very issue, I can tell you WP:BIO is taken pretty seriously around these parts.  Ford MF 04:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:BLP|Biographies of living persons]]

message: I'm going to delete the entries we have here for videos in which none of the participants have their own wiki page.  Some of the people even with wiki pages now strain the definition of "celebrity", and I think those without really have to go, in the interests of keeping this article reasonable and readable.  Ford MF 02:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a great plan. BTW, great work on this page - let me know if I can help with the refs. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Celebrities?  Really?

message: About Mimi... I'm not sure relatives of celebrities count as celebrities in their own right.  What did she ever do besides get born a couple years after someone who turned out to be famous?  Again, I think if a person doesn't have a wiki entry, they shouldn't be on this list.  Ford MF 01:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm. Possibly true, though it could be argued that it is a celebrity sextape just because its well known as one in the wide world. I don't think we can decide it isn't if most other references say it is. The Yeti 02:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Mimi MacPherson]] and other relatives of celebrities

message: I've tried to add Page 3 Idol 2004 Keeley Hazell to the list of KNOWN tapes, but it keeps being removed. Justify your actions admin. Here is my evidence  now where is yours?
:It doesn't say anything about it being a tape involving sexual activity, though- just "A private tape". For all your cite says, it could just as easily be a home movie of her dressed up as Jar-Jar Binks and having a pretend lightsabre battle with her brother. We all know the "Private Video" in question is obviously a sex tape of some kind, but you'll need to find a reputable cite to that effect. Also, I don't think Page 3 girls really count as "Celebrities" outside The Sun's readership- they're certainly not internationally known. The woman in question doesn't even have a Wikipedia article on her, for example. --Commander Zulu 02:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it twice because you didn't put a source in. Instead of coming here and copping an attitude, try using sources the next time you want to add content to an article. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This "event" hasn't been noted anywhere in the gossip columns/entertainment news sections in Australia, AFAIK. Not that "celebrity status in Australia" is a defining requirement for inclusion here, but it might be worth asking whether or not someone can be considered a "Celebrity" simply by virtue of appearance on a reality TV show or being voted "Page 3 Idol". --Commander Zulu 05:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I guess she's a 'celebrity'. She may not be much of one, but to some page 3 readers (not I) she's the bee's knees. So I guess she counts The Yeti 23:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keeley Hazell 

message: This chap has a whole load of listed sex tapes , and 'discussions' on their real/fake status. Is he a) a valid cite ref ? b) clean enough to link to for Wikipedia (as some refs already do)? I know some of his list cite Wiki as a ref (so its kinda circular), but there are some links of his own, plus usually the video itself The Yeti 23:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a blog, so under WP:RS, it's not usable as a source. I admit he looks like he's done some homework, but them's the rules. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RobOnt.net

message: why was the benzino sex tape removed from the list, it just leaked and its all overt..... GOOGLE it if u dont belive me!!!!!!!
:It wasn't properly sourced, and therefore didn't comply with WP:BLP. | Mr. Darcy talk 19:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is http://www.bossip.com/?s=benzino+sex+tape good enough? It has a link to ...krunktastic (or something) which directs back to bossip and another site (i couldn't get to load) Tydamann (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: BENZINO

message: I strongly disagree with the recent reversion by Yamla to the edits on the content of the Celebrity sex tape page.
The edited part discussed the social phenomonen of sex tapes, and the growing popularity.  Without the information provided, the user has no idea why these sex tapes are important, nor that they have become remarkably more prevalent in the last 10 years.
Yes, some of this is based on the perception of the writer, and not attributable to a reliable source, but, by comparison, what is the reliable source for the definition of a celebrity sex tape.
The text that was contributed adds background information to the topic, and, helps turn a bland definition of something into a description of something greater - a social phenomenon with a real tipping point and change in socal mores. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.109.248.77 (talk) 04:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  history/overview of sex tapes as a social phenomenon 

message: What about stars who became famous only after the release of their sex tape (as opposed to Paris Hilton, who was already famous before the release of ! Night in Paris).
This is the case with Sibel_Kekilli, who participated/starred in a sex tape  at the beginning of her career (i.e. as an unknown and not-yet-famous actor). After she became famous for starring in Head-On, the German tabloid Bild revealed in tabloid manner that she had previously starred in several pornographic movies which were soon reissued in local (read: German) adult video stores/adult video rental places.
But may be mentioning every not so famous famous (in the English speaking world anyway) person is not what the English Wikipedia is about...so I put my observation here.--84.145.222.231 17:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The pornographic movies in question are not sex tapes, they're just "normal", commercial porn. 85.181.214.251 (talk) 19:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Sibel Kekilli

message: I replaced most of this section.  Some of it was clearly cruft (imaginary Britney Spears tape) and some of it badly cited (that Serbian chick, whassername), and it was better deleted in the first place.  But the rest of it has a place here, I believe.  Certainly it's silly to delete Zahra Amir Ebrahimi as a violation of WP:BLP when there's an entire article, personally vetted by Jimbo Wales himself, devoted to the subject.  And by "personally vetted", I mean he almost booted me for writing it, but a safe compromise version was accomplished and I don't think this tiny summary violates that.
Also WP:BLP only applies to LIVING PERSONS.  Joan Crawford, Marilyn Monroe and Chuck Connors are all dead.  And it's kind of important to have these most persistent rumors listed as they are historically important in the context of this article.  Anyway what remains is all well cited from reputable sources, so I don't think there should be any more trouble with the section.  Ford MF 15:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rumored, fraudulent, &c.

message: There is (arguably) a 3-minute video file of Fred Durst , 
lead singer of Limp Bizkit , with an un-named female sex 
partner , available on the internet .  It is prominently 
watermarked "T.Mobile.Terrorists" and widely distributed . 
I have seen the file .  It is a carefully made teaser , 
edited with intercut views from a (likely) longer video , 
with selected music dubbing over the original audio ... 
Even though the existence of a tape has been "known" since 
February 2005 (it originated in 2003) , Wikipedia is silent 
on its existence both here , and in the Fred Durst biography 
page .  I believe that there is sufficient public and 
reliable sourcing now  for this silence to end ... 
The celebrity gossip site Smoking Gun , on March 5 2005 , 
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0304051durst1.html
posted photocopy images of an application for a temporary restraining order ... 
 listing Gawker Media and additional defendants , 
 and asserting (from a deposition by plaintiff Durst) 
 "an intimate bedroom video" between ... plaintiff and
  his former girlfriend" ; 
 "in or about 2003 , plaintiff , with his girlfriend's
  knowlege and consent , recorded by digital video his
  girfriend and him[self] engaged in various explicit
  sexual and intimate relations together . Plaintiff 
  is readily identifiable on the video ... " 
Additionally , we have these "mainstream" media reports 
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1497523/20050225/limp_bizkit.jhtml
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1497823/20050307/limp_bizkit.jhtml
which discuss Durst's legal battle concerning the 
distribution of the tape and screen-capture images 
made from it . 
Celebrity and "porn" Blogs , such as (for example) 
http://www.whitecheech.com/index.php/archives/2005/03/01/more-fred-durst-news/
have speculated on who Durst's partner is , but I 
understand that Wikipedia does not consider such 
sources reliable . Even 
http://www.kpnt.com/MusicNews/Display.aspx?ID=40587
(which I believe has chosen the "wrong" female) is 
probably not "reliable enough" for use by Wikipedia . 
Therefore , I will understand if the female partner 
is only referred to in our Wikipedia articles as 
"his former girlfriend" .  However , I do not 
understand how Wikipedia can continue to ignore 
the existence of this material , and avoid reference 
to it both in the main page here , and in the Durst 
biography page .  
Durst is entitled to prevent others from distributing 
or profiting from his private tape , but he is not 
entitled to prevent us from discussing its existence . 
Please comment ... Mmw220 19:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you've sufficiently backed up your argument - go add it (and the references). The Yeti 03:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen the tape too and was wondering why it wasn't here... who removed it? RedAugust 03:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fred Durst 

message: The list is missing a refernce to the widely-circulated Katie Price sex tape. Problem is the only on-line sources that seem to be available now are porn sites and blogs with copyvio versions of the tape in question. The fact the tape exists is not in dispute; the problem is (and I think this is the same problem facing the confirmed McPherson tape mentioned above) is Wiki's prohibition against posting porn site links. For example, there is a site called celebritymoviearchive that has clips from both tapes in question, but we can't post the actual link. It's a challenge faced by this topic, I guess. 23skidoo 16:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the justification for declaring a "porn site" an unreliable source? Just because the site's content is objectionable to many does not make it unreliable. Hasn't Katie Price herself acknowledged the authenticity of this tape?69.143.84.116 (talk) 18:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The justification is WP:V and WP:RS. Most porn sites don't reliably post or cite the very basics of journalistic reporting called the whom, what and where as well as how the information/tape was obtained. Until the subject matter can be verified by reliable sources, there is no room for inclusion. ----moreno oso (talk) 19:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I also forgot to include WP:BLP. In a nutshell, items concerning living persons must have reliable sources otherwise no inclusion. ----moreno oso (talk) 19:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Katie Price

message: :Image:Parisdvd2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 23:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Parisdvd2.jpg

message: I have seen a video with Ben Affleck, supposidy before he was famous, to make a little money. It shows him masturbating on a couch. Can I add this? And the only links that I can find, are porn sites... Bryse 04:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In light of the significant WP:BLP issues inherent with this article, you need solid reliable sources for that kind of addition.  I doubt a porn site will be sufficiently reliable.--Kubigula (talk) 04:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ben Affleck 

message: I don't think the following recently-added entry on the list belongs here:
A sex clip of Vietnamese teen actress and singer Hoang Thuy Linh, famous for the leading role Yellowbird in the Vietnamese television show the Yellow Bird's diary, and her boyfriend was distributed over the internet in October, 2007. The Yellow Bird's diary was seen as an educational show for Vietnamese teens. The 16-minute long sex clip has drawn national attention in Vietnam shortly after it was released.[23] See also Vietnamese "The Yellow Bird" sex clip scandal
I don't think this sufficiently fulfills the "celebrity" part of the equation.  On the Vietnamese Wiki perhaps, but not here.  The participant doesn't even have a Wikipedia article, and the supposed scandal article is redlinked as well.  The article for the TV show this girl is from was created by User:Jack brian (who has only logged edits relating to this sex tape item) after the information was added to this article by an anon IP whom I'm guessing was also jack brian.  And that article basically only consists of this one gossip item as well.  Ford MF 14:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hoang Thuy Linh

message: I am moving this section to the Talk Page because its verifiability is questionable.  All of the reference sources are in Vietnamese, so their content and reliability cannot be confirmed by the intended readers of this encyclopedia, i.e., those who read English. Further, the actress herself is not the subject of a Wikipedia article. The section is also excessively long and somewhat POV.  Risker 03:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hoang Thuy Linh 

message: Going into a clinical discussion of the activities portrayed on a private sex tape never intended for public release (as in the examples of the Jayne Kennedy and Chuck Berry listings) appears to go against Wikipedia policy on BLP, which states (under Presumption in favor of privacy):
"An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, and as such it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. BLPs must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy." 128.218.20.69 (talk) 09:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Claims" are not the same as "factual evidence", in which sex tapes are included I think.  Regard for the subject's privacy must be counterbalanced with the fact that these people of their own volition visually documented their participation in sex acts.  Reprinting claims that an actor is gay is generally a BLP violation; printing the documented fact that an actor has engaged in gay sex on a widely distributed video tape is not.  Ford MF (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  clinical discussion of contents of sex tape 

message: Isn't celebrity is those entertainer?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.48.109.110 (talk) 03:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a flexible definition, I think.  I'm pretty sure people would agree John F. Kennedy Jr. was a celebrity (by common consent), though he was neither a politician nor an entertainer.  People were merely interested in him, which must be the primary qualification for celebrity I think.  Ford MF (talk) 16:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Politician = Celebrity? 

message: Textbook violation of  and thus must be removed per BLP. Sceptre (talk) 14:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 1) WE perhaps need to remove "rumored" from the section heading to clarify what it really is, but virtually all the entries there exist to debunk persistent rumors of the existence of sex tapes.  If anything, as a whole they exonerate the subjects of participation.  Readers of the New York Post will probably persist under the false impression that a Marilyn Monroe sex tape does in fact exist.  Thank god for wikipedia for clearing things up.  And 2) Not all of the subjects listed there are alive, and therefore are not covered by BLP in the first place.  Ford MF (talk) 07:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the template which warned against "biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial claims".  I went through all the entries, and the only one that didn't cite a reputable source was the Lindsay Lohan entry, which I took the liberty of removing.  Ford MF (talk) 00:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rumoured sex tapes 

message: Please stop removing the BLPWatch template.  I'm assuming people removing it don't even know what its function is.  Please see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/BLPWatch.  This article contains information which should adhere to our BLP guidelines, and the template helps ensure it does.  Thanks. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  BLP Watch 

message: Since I'm getting more and more eager to put this edit warring to rest, I've submitted a report on the BLP noticeboard.  I'd like some eyes external to this dispute to look the thing over.  Certainly no one else seems to think this is as textbook a violation as User:Spectre.  Ford MF (talk) 01:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit warring

message: Per WP:BLP "Editors should avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. When less-than-reliable publications print material they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases. Look out for these. If the original publication doesn't believe its own story, why should we?"
It is in no may acceptable to be posting information which the source itself acknowledges as dubious when dealing with living people. It is grossly inappropriate to say "So in so celebrity may have had sex on tape, or perhaps it is just a rumor". We are an encyclopedia, not a gossip rag. I ask the the person who returned the rumor section not to return it again. (1 == 2)Until 17:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, first of all, some of the subjects of the section you deleted are dead, so BLP doesn't apply in the first place. Secondly, did you actually read what you pasted? The sources are reliable (they include Der Spiegel, The Village Voice and Time). The material isn't being presented as true, quite the contrary. The information is definitely relevant: many sources have written about the alleged Marilyn Monroe film, and Streisand herself has talked about the sex tape that is wrongly said to include her. You have no legit argument for deleting this stuff. —Chowbok ☠ 17:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether or not the subjects are alive or dead, I quite agree that we should not be including any information into the encyclopedia when the reference source itself indicates that they have not been able to confirm the information, as in the case of Marilyn Monroe.  Risker (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Monroe entry does confirm it.  As a hoax.  See also: Marilyn Monroe.  Ford MF (talk) 18:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

text: If enough people believe that a sex tape exists so that there are multiple, reliable sources going to the trouble of debunking it, then it most definitely is relevant and on topic. A "rumor mill" generates rumors; hence the "mill" part. If we're simply accurately repeating what reliable sources have said on the subject, that doesn't make us a "rumor mill". And we're not "muddling" fact and fiction; the fact that something does not exist is just as much a fact as that something does exist. There's no fiction in this article, or in the section you deleted.—Chowbok ☠ 18:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually mills take a raw product and spit out a more refined product. Rumor mill was the correct term to describe what was in the section. 1 != 2 13:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Per [[WP:BLP]] 

message: Due to edit warring, this page has been fully protected, in accordance with the Protection Policy.  The page will remain fully protected until May 26, or until the problem(s) have been addressed.  I invite the involved users to discuss the article on this talk page, and reach a consensus for disputed information.   Thanks, Rjd0060 (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page protected 

message: Yep, this ol' chestnut - however, there is a reputable source as to the existence of one this time ... http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/showbiznews.html?in_article_id=566985&in_page_id=1773 (right at the bottom). 
When the page is unblocked, maybe can be added (as a rumour ! :-) ? The Yeti (talk) 03:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Another rumour too http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/showbiznews.html?in_article_id=485400&in_page_id=1773 I guess The Mail On Sunday is reputable ? The Yeti (talk) 03:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

text: And what about Danielle Lloyd, Sophie Anderton, Jimi Hendrix, and that mysterious royal ... ? [] [] [] [] The Yeti (talk) 03:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It would not be even remotely appropriate to include a rumor of a Britney Spears sex tape. It would be a serious WP:BLP concern. If the tape is released and its existence confirmed than it would be fine to discuss it, otherwise no way. Personally I think it makes no sense to have a "rumored" section (even for disproved rumors) but we cannot include every "we heard so and so has a sex tape" story reported in tabloid newspapers. Wikipedia is not a rumor mill and our BLP policies are quite strict.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 04:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Concur; unfounded tabloid gossip is explicitly out of bounds on Wikipedia, be there ever so many sources saying "People say there may be some ..."   Ravenswing  13:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Britney Spears (& others)

message: I said I was going to put it in an order, no one objected so I did. I put it in alphabetical order (dicted by the woman's last name...I also gave a description on the actual page) For the kid Rock tape I put it under his real name (It was either put it under kid rock or scott stapp, a toss up, so I just picked Rock because I am more familiar with him, I do think that for it to be more accurate it should be under who-ever had more 'face' time in the porno..I never saw it) Colin Farrell's tape, I put under his girlfriend's name (it was originally under his) but I chose to do it all under the women's last name. The only other problem I had was with the asian names, Chua Soi Lek, Chu Mei-feng, and Baek Ji Young; I am pretty sure that the asian name is different from the Western names, but since I wasn't sure which name to go by, I just went by the final name. If those are wrong, then someone please correct them. I also re-worded them, just to make the first words the person's name example, what was - A tape of Croatian pop star Severina Vučković - is now Severina Vučković a Croatian pop star. Just to make it a little more easy to read. Tydamann (talk) 20:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I missed prior talk on this page, but I'm objecting.  Why exactly is it ordered by the woman involved?  Putting aside the fact the weirdly misogynistic connotation given, and aside from the arbitrariness of exceptions made (viz Kid Rock), this ordering system would be completely useless if (or rather, when) we are faced with the eventuality of a gay celebrity sex tape.  If anything I think it should be roughly chronological.  Ford MF (talk) 20:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: New Order

message: It would be nice to at least have it mentioned that there was a sex tape of a man who was claimed to be R Kelly. There are tons of sources out there ( http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/05/20/rkelly.trial/index.html ). Also, it should note that he was acquitted of all charges though ( http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/06/13/rkelly.closings.ap/index.html ). I'd add it myself, but I'd like someone else to check the sources (and find others) before adding it so it doesn't violate biographies of living persons. 76.116.109.221 (talk) 08:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If he denies it is him, and the courts agreed with him, it is a violation of BLP.  Ford MF (talk) 09:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: R Kelly Sex Tape Possibility?

message: With her dvd tape Kendra Exposed being released by vivid in June 2010, shouldn'y she be on the list?--Cooly123 19:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kendra Wilkinson 

message: In February 2008, a tape featuring KISS bassist Gene Simmons having sex was leaked on the internet, but no mention of it here? I thought this one was pretty well known. Youdummy (talk) 06:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gene Simmons 

message: The title of the page should be "Celebrity sex video" since "tape" doesn't make sense in the Internet era. I believe the kids have no idea that video tapes existed.Gabriel arisi (talk) 22:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  "Tape" is now outdated.--Kubigula (talk) 03:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but its how these types of "videos" are identified by the media. No one seems to refer to "celebrity sex videos". Its just the nature of our lexicon. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tape? 

message: In an encyclopedia such as this, are criteria for reliable references and sources relaxed when the topic is on the subject of pornography?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.82.64.17 (talk) 23:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  An article like this could impact a person's reputation or career, so the sourcing requirements are more stringently applied - see our policy regarding controversial information about living persons.--Kubigula (talk) 03:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliability 

message: If I remember correctly, the Eric Dane sex tape was listed here. Why was it removed?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.202.83.4 (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no actual sex in the tape, so it isn't a celebrity sex tape.--Kubigula (talk) 02:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Eric Dane

message: What about Nicki Minaj's leaked sex tape?--Nikinikolananov (talk) 17:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nicki Minaj 

message: I had to flag the statement that Hilton and Kardashian's tapes led to their fame, book deals and reality TV shows. Both were already notable before the tapes were released (that's why they were released), with both their reality shows already in production (though not necessarily airing yet) when the tapes emerged. I'm not calling the fact the tapes added to their fame dubious, but the statement references aspects of their careers that were already in place before the tapes emerged. 70.72.211.35 (talk) 16:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: They may have been notable before the sex tapes emerged, but I don't think you can really argue that the tapes increased their fame - which is all the statement alleges.--Kubigula (talk) 16:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Delayed response (IP has changed but I used to be 70) - the way I interpreted it the statement implies the TV shows, etc came as a direct result of the sex tapes. Not the same thing. 68.146.70.124 (talk) 17:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Hilton and Kardashian statement

message: Not sure what the criteria for adding to the list is, but if we have Kendra Wilkinson's tape, then the Karissa Shannon Superstar tape, starring her Girls Next Door co-star should be included. In addition, her partner in the tape is actor Sam Jones III who at the time was known for co-starring in Smallville. 68.146.70.124 (talk) 17:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Karissa Shannon

message: Anyone opposed to alphabetical sections? This article is long enough its a bit of a mess now. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alpha sections 

message: The fact that someone claims to have a "sex tape" involving a celebrity is not sufficient to include the claim here (or, in general, anywhere on Wikipedia). Inclusion of such an unverified claim is clearly forbidden when one of the participants is alive (especially if they deny the claim). This article is about tapes circulated to the general public, not rumors, unverified reports, or tapes people have locked away. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an interesting opinion, but I don't see anything about "circulation" in the description of the this article. The tape must involve a celebrity and  video or images that have been viewed by the public in part or whole of that person(s) having sex. For example, I've found postings of screen captures of the Johnny Carson sex tape you are personally so opposed to for inclusion in this article. It would appear that its been made available to the public. If you can't view them, maybe the UK's porn filters are to blame... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think Hullaballoo is more concerned about unverified rumours. I agree circulation is not necessarily a criteria (for example I believe a sex film involving Marilyn Monroe has been confirmed as being in the possession of either her estate or the estate of one of her husbands, and it is never to be publicly released, but its existence I believe is confirmed in non-trivial media). But, to use a recent example, there is gossip that a certain Canadian teen singing star and his ex-girlfriend (herself a teen singer and TV actress) made a sex tape. We can't add that to this article based on those reports alone. A reference can only be added if said tape is released to the public (and confirmed as not fake, of course), or if both parties confirm in non-tabloid media that such a tape exists. But having said that, if you were to try and list everyone of note who has recorded themselves having sex over the years, especially now that anyone with a phone can make videos, I don't think the mere existence of a tape or film is inherently notable. Circulation would be an obvious criteria (despite what I said above), as might media coverage of, say, legal action surrounding it, or if the person involved is of a certain stature of notability (for example, Monroe). 68.146.52.234 (talk) 15:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unverified claims 

message: We need to be careful about how we word these listings per WP:BLP rules. I just changed the entry for Minka Kelly as the way it was worded suggested she produced and marketed her sex tape herself, whereas the linked articles state otherwise. 68.146.52.234 (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Minka Kelly

message: What does everyone think? OK, not OK, don't care, "this article is about celebrity sex tapes and deserves the amount of attention that one would give to a buzzing fly"? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk)  18:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Big improvement.  If we are going to have this article, then it may as well be well structured.--Mojo Hand (talk) 19:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sections 

message: Lately there have been removals of entries from this list stating "not within the scope of the article" or similar statements. I'm not sure how they are applying this, but it appears that we don't have a source for what a celebrity sex tape is or is not.
I would have to say that at minimum its video footage (film or electronic media) of an identifiable celebrity engaged in a sexual act of some kind. But I can't say much beyond that. Anyone have any reliable sources that give a more detailed or better definition? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk)  20:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The definition isn't the issue for the removed items. Since its creation ten years ago, the scope of this article has been limited to recordings which have been "intentionally or unintentionally, been made available publicly." The removed items clearly do not meet that standard (and for some items, because no recordings have become public, their existence can't be verified). The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:51, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: So you do not have a source. OK, anyone else? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sex tape" definition 

message: An editor has recently copied the majority of this article (itself more a list than an article) into List of female celebrity sex tapes and List of male celebrity sex tapes. I just wanted to alert interested editors to ensure that the split was warranted, and that BLP policies are enforced. --Animalparty-- (talk) 21:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Both are clearly unnecessary WP:CONTENTFORKs and completely redundant, I'm nominating both for WP:DELETION. If they had started separate, we would be discussing merge, but this is not the case. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  new spin off lists 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Celebrity sex tape. 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/20070210050345/http://www.usmagazine.com/kim_kardashian_sues_2 to http://usmagazine.com/kim_kardashian_sues_2
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Celebrity sex tape. 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/20120409054839/http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20090521-206243/Palace-joins-outrage-over-docs-sex-videos to http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20090521-206243/Palace-joins-outrage-over-docs-sex-videos
*Added  tag to http://arts.nationalpost.com/2012/10/10/heather-clem-hulk-hogan-sex-tape-2012/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110203043629/http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/news/ariel-sentenced-to-35-years-jail/420003 to http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/news/ariel-sentenced-to-35-years-jail/420003
*Added  tag to http://business.avn.com/articles/13316.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Celebrity sex tape. 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/20070101033934/http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_27265118.shtml to http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_27265118.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Can R. Kelly's sex tapes be added? Michael14375 (talk) 17:19, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  R. Kelly 

message: I have no question that the topic meets WP:GNG, but does it meet WP:LISTN? It's currently a list of celebrity sex tapes, not a descriptive or insightful article. Anyway, I intend to aggressively remove entries that are (both) apparently non-consensual and not reported by several high-quality reliable sources. Ovinus (talk) 09:28, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I've checked the first three removed entries with some questionable, TMZ-like sourcing and I have easily found better sources. Some other entries have sourcing that is not questionable at all (BBC, MTV, Fox News + CBS, India Today and so on), and their "aggressive" removal is unjustifiable if not openly disruptive. --Cavarrone  19:48, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough that I should have gotten consensus first, and I don’t intend to be disruptive, so thank you for responding here. Do all of the entries here pass WP:NOTGOSSIP, though? Verifiability and BLP compliance are required, but not sufficient, for inclusion, and I don’t see a long-term impact for many of the entries I removed. Ovinus (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Really? 

message: In August 2022, R. Kelly was convicted on multiple counts of production of child sexual abuse material in a federal Chicago trial over the video we know about. My request to change the statement: section. Please and thank you? Darrion "Beans" Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 03:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to change R. Kelly statement?