Talk:Bree Olson

message: Denver944, per your note on the article I've placed an inprogress tag. Please review WP:BIO to see what kind of material is needed to show notability. Happy Christmas! Marasmusine (talk) 10:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: why is she pulling on her panties? 76.212.13.236 (talk) 09:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because she is a porn star. You didn't know? UltraEdit (talk) 16:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Or is she pulling them off?  Dismas|(talk) 16:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: picture

message: The article says that she is 22 years old, but her official myspace says that she is 20. Which is right? I couldn't check the reference listed for her age used in the article. It just links to the front page. --Deleet (talk) 02:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the "reference", if you can even call it that, is for her being a Penthouse Pet.  Her age and location of birth are/were not sourced, so I removed them.  Dismas|(talk) 02:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age? 

message: The link to the list of atheists is irrelevant and should be removed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.48.109 (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, so I removed it. rbonvall (talk) 04:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We only operate by what is verifiable here at Wikipedia. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 13:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atheist list 

message: this picture is too old and clearly does not do justice to her
also it is a little inappropriate for wiki
even though she is a pornstar
may i recommend this one
http://cdn.mademan.com/chickipedia/images/9/9a/M_ab5420c7920c2360f413ec2cd548b448_178.jpg
Hganeriwala (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 00:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That picture is clearly airbrushed. The current one is probably more how she really looks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.169.203 (talk) 22:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: One, because this article falls under WP:BLP, because it is an image of a living person, and because the linked image is copyrighted, it cannot be used because it does not meet the criteria for fair usage. Additionally, Wikipedia does not censor, therefore, it is not "inappropriate for Wikipedia". The only things which are seen as barred are obvious shock material, i.e. images of goatse.cx or the infamous 2 Girls 1 Cup. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 13:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  picture 

message: It has been well circulated in the tabloid community that she has links to Charlie Sheen, including a time in January where the two stayed together during a wild weekend at a Las Vegas hotel. Is that worth mentioning here? Karrmann (talk) 15:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say so if it can be reliably sourced.  Dismas|(talk) 15:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: can we get an update to indicate that she has left charlie sheen.  i think it has been well publicized by now that she is no longer with him, even if charlie is still "winning"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.111.192.110 (talk) 14:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Have we got citations to support this? It does neen updating if its verifiable. Here he says he tweeted she left and then he tweeted she had returned - http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20471483,00.html - Off2riorob (talk) 14:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: She is an angel; Sheen called her a 'goddess' (what he called his live-in lovers). -- AstroU (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charlie Sheen 

message: On March 1, 2011, Sheen was concurrently living with pornographic actress Bree Olson and model and graphic designer Natalie Kenly, whom he collectively nicknamed his "goddesses".[79][80][81][82][83] Olson left Sheen in April 2011, and Kenly left in June 2011.[84][85]
Please see: Charlie_Sheen#Family_and_relationships for reference footnotes  Dick Kimball (talk) 10:49, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's Right in Wikipedia 

message: Olson's maternal grandparents were Ukrainians who migrated to Texas then Fort Wayne, Indiana when she was two years old.[5] She has stated that her biggest hero is her grandmother, who was a concentration camp survivor.
In the citations provided I am only seeing that her grandmother is from Ukraine and nothing in the current citations about any concentration camp? Off2riorob (talk) 12:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  article claim 

message: Images should only be added if they provide encyclopedic context per WP:NOTGALLERY. They should have some relevance to what is discussed in the text since we already have one that identifies the subject. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've said it before and I'll say it again Bree is a very well-known celebrity due to her brief association with Charlie Sheen. Most celebrities have more than one image on their articles during different occasions as long as free images are available at the commons and Bree should not be an exception. Plus the "career" part of Bree Olson mainly deals with events that occurred in 2006-2008 during her adult industry career, which was also when the image was taken. Bree is no longer in the adult industry right now. The image is in line with the content of the subheading. Overwhelming precedents show that Wikipedia biographies are generally written in such a manner. Thank you!--TheBigNatural (talk) 19:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Your position that fame or notability confers the addition of more pictures is not supported in any policy or guideline. The argument that the photo is relevent because it is from a 2007 event because the article talks about her career in general is tenuous. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

text: If you are so insistent to delete images then I suggest you take a look at Britney Spears, Chad Ochocinco, Selena Gomez and delete all the images other than the profile image. The overwhelming precedent is to have more than one image to illustrate the individual's career arc as long as the images are available and not in violation of copyrights.--TheBigNatural (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Haven't other editors been reducing the images in the Spears article?  Which you happen to revert. Do you plan on continuing the edit war through those articles also? Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a case by case thing. Britney Spears had too many images from the exact same tour. I agree with the editor's assertion that there were too many images on Spears' article but we disagreed on what images to keep. It wasn't an edit war. We had a disagreement that has been resolved.--TheBigNatural (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid I agree with Morbidthoughts. The disputed image is unnecessary as it doesn't provide readers with any extra information or aid their understanding of the text. Epbr123 (talk) 11:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It shows her career progression. If you look at Britney Spears article, every image is of her performing. Should we delete all of them except the profile? If you look at Chad Ochocinco article, every image is of him on the practice field. Should we delete all of them too?--TheBigNatural (talk) 12:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:Other stuff exists. Nymf hideliho! 14:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus, the images of Britney performing provide more info than the pictures of Bree Olson standing doing nothing. The Chad Ochocinco article is much longer than Bree's, so the superfluous images are more tolerable. Epbr123 (talk) 14:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Ochocinco has 4-5 images on the article and his article is not 4-5 times longer than Olson's. Your argument falls flat. The images of Spears are all the same, some even from the same tour.--TheBigNatural (talk) 15:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The extra 3 Ochocinco images also all illustrate things discussed in the article from the MNF game to the preseason game to the Patriots trade. The Selena article images seem like overkill. 15:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

text: Is there any reason why you keep adding that particular walking picture, when there are other pictures in the commons that addresses some of the concerns raised, particularly this one. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No the selection of images are pretty arbitrary especially when the subject have multiple images available from the commons. It seems like you have a personal vendetta against the image I chose for whatever reason.--TheBigNatural (talk) 16:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's not personal. It's policy based. Do you not understand why that Adam & Eve signing picture is more relevant to what is discussed in the article? Your saying that the selection is arbitrary implies that they are interchangeable and don't add anything of value to the article besides being eye candy. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I fail to see how they are different. The other image you can't see her face. Plus they are within the same time span of her career. Under your rationale, you should delete almost all the images on Wikipedia not in the lead profile. There is no precedent or policy for such a drastic change.--TheBigNatural (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't see how her signing appearance for Adam & Eve is somewhat relevant to "She was a contract performer with Adam & Eve from 2007 to 2010"? No under my rationale, non-lead images should illustrate something being discussed. I am fine with the Britney and Ocho cinco images and reduced the selena gomez ones. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: The addition of images

message: Bree, especially in this recent video is both warning young girls about the dangers of pornography and the permanent social stigma attached, but also believes there is nothing inherently morally wrong with the act of performing in porn itself at the time of performance. Rather that the industry is run by "faceless men" and the female performers are unwittingly destroying their reputation in society for life. She feels as if society currently sees her(and other ex-porn stars) as morally similar to a pedophile. She appears to be saying the industry is corrupt, specifically saying that faceless men make money off her videos still and she doesn't see a cent. She also clearly regrets her loss of privacy that she now realizes occurred. How can this be well reflected in the article itself? Obviously something needs to go in the header. Is she is a "Critic of Pornography" or is she "Critical of the workings of the Pornography Industry"? Not sure how to do this myself because of her unique critical position. Colliric (talk) 02:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Olson's only substantive critique of the industry as a whole appears to be the lack of royalties. I do not see the "faceless men" bit in any of the cited sources. Olson's reference to the "faceless people behind the industry (that) still make millions and face no repercussions" could be interpreted to mean that those individuals deserve to suffer the same stigma and social isolation that she has experienced, but such a reading would be inconsistent with the rest of her article. Similarly, while she clearly regrets her loss of privacy, Olson also states that this is due to the way society now perceives her; there is nothing in her words to suggest she is ashamed of her past actions. Of note is Olson's "biggest regret": Trying to go mainstream, rather than staying in the industry for at least a few more years, which, if nothing else, would have enabled her to save enough money "to live comfortably for the rest of my life." In sum, this is not Hot Girls Wanted. Olson is a critic of the sexual double standard, not of porn itself.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: "Faceless Men" is quite an appropriate summary of that statement she made, as it is simply the traditional form of industrial criticism of mysterious/powerful people in the industry whom are also often critically described as "string-pullers" or "puppet-masters". Making it gender neutral is OK though, but it is by tradition practically gender neutral already. Also she clearly states she thinks the Porn Industry is in fact corrupt, particularly in her statement that Performer Royalties, standard to other entertainment industries, have been denied in the Porn industry, implying a conspiracy or discriminating practices. So it actually easy to interpret her statement in that manner you mentioned, because of her immediate preceding statement implying that she has been wrongly denied payment she would have received had she been performing in another more mainstream acceptable entertainment industry. She is saying they will still make money off her performances/work for years, or even decades, to come, while she likely only got her initial payment for the "days work" and is now therefore struggling financially while others still make money off her image. She IS therefore saying they do not face the same stigmas while making money for years off work SHE DID and not passing a single cent on to her. I agree she has yet to become critical of the action of participating in Pornography, but she IS clearly critical of the industry and it's machinations. Colliric (talk) 10:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: But she didn't use the "faceless men" term, or your other colorful terms such as "string-pullers" and "puppet-masters". I'm not suggesting that we edit her remarks for political reasons—you are. It is not acceptable to alter direct quotes.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bree is now a Pornography Critic, but her views on it are critically non-traditional.