Jump to content

Talk:Jenna Jameson/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Height

Height is listed in the infobox on the right as 5ft 7 (1.68m).

5ft 7 is actually 1.70m... and 1.68m is 5ft 6.

What is the correct height? (I couldn't assume either was correct).

Jenna & Catholicism

I understand Jenna is Catholic. Does she practice her religion ? (On her "E True Hollywood Story", it implies she does.) I am curious as to her views on her religion and porn and masturbation. How would she comfort another Catholic who enjoys masturbating to her films from feeling like he/she is sinning ? Would she say that if the person is not breaking any vows of marriage or any religious vows, then it is ok, no sin is commited ? Would she argue that God made us sexual, and we should enjoy it to the fullest, and it was actually Satan's influence that pushed the Church off into the wrong direction on sex, and it should be up to us to try to pull the Church back to where God really wants it on the issue of sex ? (Imagine---porn stars, God's crusaders of sex for the Catholic Church.) As a Catholic myself, who enjoys occasional adult entertainment, and suffers the conflicts resulting from it, I am really interested in Jenna's views, beliefs, and opinions on this matter.

  • Sounds like you're hoping she'll say that! But it would be interesting to know. Her lifestyle would seem to be in direct violation to the teachings of her church (if she's having sex with people other than her husband). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.53.95.31 (talk • contribs) 4 June 2006 (UTC)

pronounciation

The real name of Jameson's husband is Jay GRDINA, spelled WITHOUT an "A" between "G" and "R".

Lovely lady. But is this photo public domain? If not, we can't use it.

'Britney Loves Jenna' rumors

Also, the statement that Britney and Jenna are getting it on needs to be backed up with some evidence. Can anyone supply that evidence? A quick google returned this rebuttle:

http://www.worldofbritney.com/archives/all/2002_09_07_21-56_britney_and_jenna_jameson_=_false.txt.html - chaswell 19:11 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC)

I would love to see her and Britney get it on. They could make millions if they taped it and sold it.

Most of us would love to see that!!

Moved the rumor here:

Her friendship with pop singer Britney Spears has been widely reported as a homosexual relationship.

Tell us why it was reported and what evidence was presented. Even then, it's questionable whether this is relevant to a Wikipedia article. --Eloquence 19:17 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC)

She's American, so shouldn't her vital stats be in pounds and inches and such? Mike H 19:06, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

No! If vital stats were given on people from other countries (e.g. boxers, sumo), would you expect them to be given in localised weights and measures? Like it or not, and I am guessing you don't, metric is part of the internationally agreed W&M standard, and Wikipedia is international. pomegranate 00:11, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)
Here's what the Wikipedia:Manual of Style says: "Articles which focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally aim to conform to the spelling of that country." Hate to get all jingoistic on you but Jenna is American and weighs 115 lbs. not 50 kilos. I don't mind having the metric in parentheses, but if we're going to get pedantic, shouldn't her metric "weight" be 490N? --Polynova 07:29, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but in the interest of being "technical" I must add: 1) The use of either the metric or the pound system is certainly not a question of "spelling" in the linguistic sense, which is what the manual of style means when it states what was transcribed in the comment above; 2)There is no such thing as weighing "x" in pounds "and not in kilos". Please! Both are just different methods (scales, systems) of expressing the exact same value; if you weigh "x" in pounds, believe me, you do weigh an equivalent "y" in kilograms. But there shouldn't be a fuss here, since both values are expressed in the article. As a means of avoiding conflicts and even revert wars though (which was not the case here anyway), which one goes in parenthesis should be defined by rule of precedence. But not because someone is from any particular place that happens to adopt a particular system. Regards, Redux 20:21, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt, but I came here using the "random page" link, and I must admit I have been shocked by the photograph at the bottom of the page. I think it should be removed, because one photograph is enough, and the second one does not convey any relevant information. I find it too suggestive to be acceptable here.

- Random page, yeah right... :-)

What do we have this chic up here for? If you want to know about Jenna go somewhere else, not an encyclopedia. - User:66.82.9.39

Famous people deserve encyclopedia entries, even if they're famous for things of which you may not approve. We have mass-murderers, assassins, dictators, even Yanni. Generally we do a good job of covering porn-stars etc. in an informative, non-prurient way. Sure, you can find all kinds of junk elsewhere, here we try to cover all subjects in an encyclopedic manner. -- John Fader 22:37, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I agree. This encyclopedia is different than others precisely because it includes entries such as Jenna Jameson. She is considered to be a popular icon, perhaps more famous than many contemporary rock stars and politicians. Of course, she is certainly more popular than you are, 66.82.9.39. In my opinion, these articles about adult actresses should stay as long as they are informative, unbiased, and non-pornographic.


According to Jameson's book, she started stripping at age 16 (not 12), and when she signed with Wicked pictures she was not being actively sought out by any companies. She personally met with "Blinky" (her name for Wicked's President) and personally negotiated a deal. Also, her father worked in television (but CNN is not mentioned) until her mother died, when Jenna was 2. From then on, her father was a policeman, so listing her as the child of a CNN executive is misleading, if not actively wrong. (It's not implied that he ever worked for CNN.)

The whole date of death thing on the template is a little spooky and inappropriate. Youngamerican 12:37, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If I may ask, how is it "inappropriate"? Granted, Jenna's not decased (yet), but humans have life spans. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 01:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Considering that alot of porn stars are still living (unlike, say, popes and presidents), maybe there should be an 'alive' and a 'deceased' version of the template like there are in alot of other templates. It kinda seems like the template is expecting her to OD or blow her brains out like Savannah any minute now. Otherwise, you made a top-notch template that helps keep non-encyclopedic info out of these articles. Youngamerican
If I'm going to complain, I also needed to put my money where my mouth is, to I created this template: Template:Female adult bio (living). It is completely the one you made, minus the date of death stuff. It can be used on living pornistas, but the original one works great for Chloe Jones, Linda Lovelace, and the like. Youngamerican 16:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Youngamerican, I changed the template so that the "Death" field is now rendered invisible for stars who aren't dead yet. Took about 5 mintues for me to do, once I figured how. In other words, there's no reason to have two different templates (i.e "life" or "death" versions); simply leave the "death" field blank when defining it and the whole line will not show up... Now I'll be going off to sleep. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 03:33, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Good work, I'll go delete the other one now. Youngamerican 22:49, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks! If you have any other suggestions, let me know via my talk page. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 06:27, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

picture

This has come up before in reference to this article; don't know if it's still an issue, but -- porn stars make a living off of their images, and it seems to me that, given that, the picture that we have up here is pushing the boundaries of fair use. A better bet might be the cover of her book; book covers are regularly used in publicity, and there would be a much better argument there for fair use (not that I'm an expert, though I have done some reading about copyright law, for what that's worth.) I don't have the book handy, and don't have a scanner, or I'd make the change myself.... NoahB 3 July 2005 20:52 (UTC)

As long as it is a promotional photo we should be able to use the image under fair use guidelines. Of course, something of public domain would be nice, but I haven't been able to find one myself... -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 4 July 2005 04:11 (UTC)
Is the image up there a promotional photo? There's no info about its source -- it could be from a pay site for all we know. If you know the source, maybe you could add it under the image info page? [1]. Otherwise, we really should get a new picture, or at least delete this one.... NoahB 4 July 2005 10:30 (UTC)
My error. I assumed that it was already tagged as fair use. I've notified the user and am searching to see where exactly this image is from. If I can't find it, I believe the picture previous to this one was fair use. However, I honestly don't know why the image was changed in the first place, but I kept my mouth shut on that one. More important matters to deal with than people changing pictures because it "looks better". -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 4 July 2005 15:08 (UTC)
That new picture seems like a better choice for lots of reasons. Thanks for putting it up. NoahB 5 July 2005 14:49 (UTC)
No problem. If there are any other porn-related articles that need to be corrected, feel free to let me know and I'll tackle it. :-) -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 5 July 2005 20:48 (UTC)

Jenna & Jason Voorhees -- gimme a frelling break...

Just a general note:

Please don't add stuff like this... remember that this is an encyclopedia and, unless Jenna herself made any specific mention to this (say in the form of a lawsuit?), then this is not encyclopedic.

Here's the text I am referring to: 

    The Spoof, a satire website, had said that Jenna Jameson elegantly married serial killer movie star, Jason Voorhees.  [2]

Regards. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 15:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Links moved here from main page:

If any of these are to be moved back per Wikipedia:External links please discuss it here first.
brenneman(t)(c) 13:54, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


Headline text

Jenna Jameson ONLY make love TO Husband??????????? Thought Jenna Jameson ONLY make love to her husband ONLY>>>> Then why is she going to star with Mike Tyson in the upcoming movie!!!!! Can you explain?????????

Category:Gay icons sources

http://www.avnonline.com/index.php?Primary_Navigation=Web_Exclusive_News&Action=View_Article&Content_ID=234100 http://www.gayvn.com/index.php?Primary_Navigation=News&Action=View_Article&Content_ID=236769 http://forums.weboverdrive.com/showthread.php?referrerid=5717&t=21047

RobbieNomi 22:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

A lot of that looks like advertizing copy, trying to promote the partnership between Jenna Jameson and this gay porn distributor. ⟳ausa کui × 23:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
AVN (and its sister publication GayVN) is considered to be THE source for all affairs in the adult film industry, whether it be awards, anouncements, reviews, releases, news, gossip, events, or charts. 07:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

"Jameson is one of the few straight porn actresses to have developed a following among both straight and gay audiences."

That's what the article says, at the same time, the fact box says she's bisexual. What's true? /Grillo 11:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I read it as "actress in straight porn", not "straight actress in porn". — mendel ☎ 13:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
I just fixed the disambiguation in there so there should be no more confusion. RobbieNomi 09:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
hrm. did anyone here read the book about jenna jameson? because there should be more info about her in her article. im just to lazy to write the whole summary out. ha. and im new to wikipedia so i dont really know how to work it. yea.. KeyLime 03:01, 27 October 2005

Jenna isn't bi, she just has sex with other women on movies for cash and it's all money well spent.

As a matter of fact she IS very bisexual and has had sexual relationships with women such as Niki Tyler off-screen. In fact they lived with each other for a long time.

Jenna and the Oxford Union

Does the text of the "merits of porn" debate at the Oxford Union exist anywhere? If so I think it deserves to be linked here, especially considering she won the debate quite handily.

Jenna Doesn't Do Black Guys

You gotta appreciate her integrity.

Jenna Refuses to Bang Black Guys: No Attraction

No wonder she's been so successful.

Is that meant to be a good thing? I always assumed that discrimination based on race was frowned upon yet there's no mention of it as being a negative or even questionable course of action on her part. I understand the business rationale offered by Vivid and others for not having black men/white women scenes, but blaming the South seems a very poor excuse. Sez who 05:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Jenna has nice tits.

well...pornopghraphy altoghether is racist, in the porn industry it isnt that hard to find pornstars that do not wish to "bang" black people --- and she has also denied the claims of being racist---

and i honestly dont believe that people watching her movies care if shes hates black people or not, its not like she's a president or anything, she's just a pornstar...they care about her body and everything else in that area ;P

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.154.149.198 (talk • contribs) 18 May 2006 (UTC)


Jenna Jameson is a "dodger" (a porn term for women who refuse to do sex scenes with black men). This is common knowledge and should be included in her article. Look here. Akmed 9:01, 11 June 2006

Please cite a reference for this information

I have removed the following information because it does not cite a source.

As of February 3, 2006 it is rumoured that Jenna Jameson will be working with up and coming Adult film director Patrick McCulla. Although Patrick is not as large as the men Jenna usually works with, he said he can handle the load, literally. Patrick is the brother of local porn star Cheryl McCulla who starred in her first role with ironically her brother.

If someone could please cite a valid source for this info, as well as rewrite it, that would be appreciated! -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 23:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


Blog?

Which one should be listed as her blog?

http://www.myspace.com/jennajameson

or

http://www.jennajamesonblog.com/

I think jennajamesonblog.com is dead and has not been updated. Ever.

24.94.252.123 03:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Sex partners onscreen

Please help expand the list of Jenna Jamesons on screen partners.

Probably this is a link that is useful for this topic; http://www.jenna-jameson.nl/

220.238.158.74 04:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


Hilary Duff resemblance

Up for discussion, there's a growing consensus that Jenna Jameson strongly resembles an older version of the young actress Hilary Duff.

--ConradKilroy 07:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Copyleft?

The page http://jennajameson.quickseek.com/ seems to be a copy of this wikipedia article. No notice of GFDL in it.

I've removed the template because like it says it's for requesting co-examination of copyright and licensing of content with other Wikipedians before it is included in a Wikipedia article, and is not a method of complaining about mirrors. Wikipedia is free. Driller thriller 08:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

"She also boned marylin manson."

This is a useless comment with no source and seems to be vandalism. Its in the first part of hte bio. Removing it. RevKWR 21:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jenna_Jameson/Archive_1&oldid=1080136154"