Talk:Jessica Drake

message: On Friday October 24, 2008 during an interview on KJR-AM in Seattle, Jessica stated that she "hates Wikipedia" and that her entry has many inaccuracies.  I would edit the entry, but the specifics were vague and there is no recording for me to go back and check.  Just FYI to readers.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChuckOp (talk • contribs) 16:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccuracies 

message: There's been a disagreement over which Jessica Drake image to use on this article, so before an edit
war ensues, let's start a poll.  Instead of simply choosing from one of the recent two, we should find
the best candidate from those in commons.
If anybody else has rights to another image of her that is not already there, and would like to make it available, please do. Valrith (talk) 05:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Use AN_Jessica_Drake_2: I consider this one the better of the recent two, as it has no additional cruft in the frame that distracts from the subject. Valrith (talk) 05:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hahaha. I agree with 2. We don't need Alan aka Anime Nut aka cruft in the picture. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: AN_Jessica_Drake_2 Epbr123 (talk) 11:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: AN_Jessica_Drake_2 is good with me.  Or one with her in the red number.  That's fine as well.  Dismas|(talk) 13:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If AN 1 didnt have those people in the background I'd go with that one, but 2's acceptable. Tabercil (talk) 05:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: File:Jessica Drake, 2007 closeup.JPG better show her face in infobox, but :File:AN Jessica Drake 2.jpg does not do so. The image fields in infobox of biography articles are places for showing their faces. There is a definite encyclopedic purpose, beyond simple identification. -- Ytfin (talk) 07:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a modified version of :File:AN Jessica Drake 2.jpg could be made that focuses on her face. Epbr123 (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll: Jessica Drake image 

message: All mentions of her real name I've seen say "according to IMDB", and IMDB is not a reliable source. Please don't stick her supposed real name in here until we are absolutely sure. Per WP:BLP. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Who says IMDB is not a reliable source?  Sounds to me like you are wanting to stick your own personal views in here.  If you would like I could post a link to a copy of her Equifax Credit report that a "friend" of mine who works as a bank loan officer posted online a couple of days ago that would establish [redacted] as this person's real identity.  Would that be helpful?  Because the inclusion of IMDB as a source for this material (because it is "noncontentious material" about a living person (see "Inappropriate Uses" items Number One at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_IMDb) is within policy guidelines it seems to me, friend, that you are wayyyy out of line here.  Unless you wish to claim that her name is somehow in dispute or the subject of "contention".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.116.34 (talk) 07:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: As to who says IMDB is not a reliable source, that would be WP then:WP:USERGENERATED. Pocketed</sup> 07:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

text: Yes, the real name of someone currently involved in a public scandal is "potentially contentious", so yes, this is an example of where IMDb should not be cited as per Wikipedia:Citing IMDb. Even if the Trump situation was not involved, it would still be a problem, as linking a named individual to a pornography career could be damaging if incorrect, so we really need a reliable source. And no, linking to someone's doxing attempt would not be helpful or appropriate. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you all. IMDB is not reliable, someone posting something that they stole from somewhere is also not reliable. Reliable is published reliable in reliable sources--unless they all say "according to IMDB" or some such thing. Drmies (talk) 18:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real name 

message: The adjective "feminist" is not a pejorative, modifying "attorney." There are certainly people who would construe "lawyer" to be negative. However Allred is persistently referred to as such. It is a neutral and accurate descriptive term. For instance, the lede in her article is:
Gloria Rachel Allred (née Bloom; born July 3, 1941) is an American civil rights lawyer who is noted for taking high-profile and often controversial cases; she has been particularly involved with cases involving the protection of women's rights. 
Here's some of the references cited in her article:
Michelle Goldberg (29 November 2011). "Funny Business: Gloria Allred, the famous "feminist lawyer," has accomplished a great deal for women. 
Jump up ^ Nguyen, Khoi (November 1997). "Feminist Fatale". Los Angeles Magazine.
"Has Heather's "feminist American lawyer" fallen for her fantasies?". Daily Mail. London. March 20, 2008. Retrieved 2010-09-22. Activist (talk) 05:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not for me. "Civil rights" is a much broader category. She has deliberately carved out a very well defined niche. Do you think "feminist" is a bad or hot-button word? Activist (talk) 13:42, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Her "feminist" attorney 

message: :I went ahead and copied the Drake section from the main article: difff. I believe it's the best approach as it makes sure that the two articles are aligned. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main article on sexual misconduct allegations