Talk:Tatum Reed

message: While listings on various erotic services websites is certainly compelling evidence, declaring somebody a prostitute, absent a declaration by the subject or reporting in reliable sources, I think is a bit dodgy and certainly a BLP issue since the activity is illegal.  I'm removing it for now, until such sources are found.  I find it quite possible that Ms. Reed is open about her activities, given what I've read, but until we have a direct quote, I don't think that we can call somebody a prostitute.  -Chunky Rice 17:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Caption of Reed inNY Daily News  Linked article refers to her as "Porn star, hooker, Republican Christian mother". TER links were also linked from Reed's website.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.59.224 (talk) 06:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alleged prostitution 

message: I added the outdated tag as the most recent information here appears to be a number of years old, in particular the cited sources, plus the Popwhore website link is dead, although a good portion of the article discusses it. Needs a bit of updating from anyone in the know. 68.146.52.234 (talk) 15:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Outdated

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Tatum Reed. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071009143739/http://popwhore.libsyn.com:80/ to http://popwhore.libsyn.com
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:09, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Tatum Reed. 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/20080516102337/http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/rush_molloy/2007/07/02/2007-07-02_reflections_of_the_way_ross_used_to_boss.html to http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/rush_molloy/2007/07/02/2007-07-02_reflections_of_the_way_ross_used_to_boss.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) 15:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The info about her gyms has been re-inserted. The two people are blatantly, obviously the same person to anyone who can look at the many photos of both people, not to mention "Tatum Reed" talks about Pop Physique on her official Twitter feed . She hasn't done anything to try and hide this connection, allowing photos to be published and advertising Pop Physique on her porn Twitter account. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 21:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: What you are doing is prohibited synthesis and the content is removed. The connection between Tatum Reed and Jennifer Williams needs to be supported by reliable sources. Any inference that has to be done is original research. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is not Synthesis. That would be using sources to reach conclusions they don't make themselves. Reed discusses owning Pop Physique herself on her official Twitter feed, and self-published sources are acceptable for confirming biographical information (see WP:TWITTER). Additionally, Jennifer Doidge (Jennifer Williams maiden name) is registered as the owner of the POPWHORE trademark. It's common knowledge they're the same person. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 02:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is this tweet where she discusses owning Pop Physique? In fact, where are these sources at all? "Common knowledge" [which this isn't] still requires sourcing. What was in the article originally did not remotely qualify. Especially when it comes to porn performers, the sourcing requires is extremely strict. You can't just say "hey they look alike, let's say this other woman is a porn star!" --Golbez (talk) 04:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

text: Uhhh, it is synthesis since it requires making several deductions. Your premises start with Reed says she owns Pop Physique according to her twitter (which may not pass WP:TWITTER because it can be seen as a self-serving claim of accomplishment); a source says Jennifer Williams is the female owner of Pop Physique; and trademark records (fails WP:BLPPRIMARY) show Jennifer Doidge owns PopWhore (THAT MUST BE HER MAIDEN NAME!!!) therefore Reed = Williams. No, that is impermissible original research. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Comical. As always, Wikipedia is several steps behind the rest of the world. This discussion is pointless. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 23:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Pro. --Golbez (talk) 03:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most recent updates