This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
how many times does this article need to mention that club jenna has revenue of $30 million pre year? i would think that one time is plenty, heck, maybe even two times. but 5, 6 times? it's like tito. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.143.189 ( talk) 13:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
pregnant by her boyfriend and martial artist tito ortiz.???? bad grammar. this makes it sound like she is pregnant by two different people. titos job is irrelevant. how about "her boyfriend tito ortiz" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.143.189 ( talk) 14:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
THERE IS POLISH TRANSLATION OF HER BOOK (march 2009) polish title "Jak.. kochać się jak gwiazda porno. Opowieśc ku przestrodze" —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
217.74.64.220 (
talk)
10:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
where is the info on the laundry list of plastic surgery that jenna has had done on her face? one chin implant? not a chance. look at pictures of her from the mid-nineties. she bears absolutely no resemblance to the face she has now. none. so...what about the other surgeries? true story- i sent an e-mail to tito once telling him that she has to stop butchering her face because she doesn't even look real anymore. a week later, they released a statement saying that jenna is not going to have anymore plastic surgery. however, i think she is addicted to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.143.189 ( talk) 14:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
It's quite tragic how people spend time writing this big article about a porn actress. I mean come on, it's not like she is a brain surgeon. It's especially tragic since there are numerous other articles that are way more important but with far lesser information. This article was not fascinating. Only boring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.136.132 ( talk) 18:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Well you took the time to read it. If you want to read about a brain surgeon or something you feel is way more important then look that up. There must have been some type of curiosity for you to type her name in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.169.90.194 ( talk) 18:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Maybe that person didn't type her name in as a search. It was a featured article after all. Why it was a featured article is beyond me. What a sad society we are now.-- 70.146.150.238 ( talk) 20:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
i agree, this is a sad article written by sad people. Dioxholster ( talk) 18:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I tend to agree also, her life is no more interesting that that of a junkie's. The only difference is that she got lucky while many who go along this road end up dead or working in a checkout - nothing particuarly exciting or extroadinary about that or the individual. Essentially anyone born with half decent looks can go down the path of drugs, porn and quick money, no talent required there. As a society and as mass media, decadence to mask ordinaryness is often used to sensationalise and to give a quick thrill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.16.193.46 ( talk) 22:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Jenna Jameson's homepage, which is linked at the bottom of the article, is a pornographic site. A few of the others are too. They look like advertisements with no real educational value. I came to Wikipedia looking for legitimate biographical information, and I don't think that linking to blatantly pornographic sites is in the right spirit. Is this against Wikipedia policy? If not, it should be. Not because it links to something that should be censored but because it links to a site with no informational value. You may as well link to a Google image-search page for "Jenna Jameson" for the same "information."
Take this as a question, not as a proposal: If wikipedia is not censored, why are there no pictures of porn actors in full nudity sexual explicit scenes? Arent that what they are famous for, what they are notable for? So then, why is it not illustrated? Just wondering. -- Striver - talk 17:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Can we add a link to her Virgin Comic? Let's add a link to her new horror comic book series, Shadow Hunter, that's debuting from Virgin soon. Perhaps put it in her post pornographic acting career, and after her book description at the top of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timcanterbury616 ( talk • contribs) 20:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
It's been protected for a year and a half almost... yes, it may get some spam, but shouldn't we assume good faith about IP editors and new users rather than indefinitely protecting this article?? Just a thought. Ta, -- 1qx ( talk) 11:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
This page isn't pathetic. It isn't even important enough to be pathetic. It does show, however, that Wikipedia is kind of pathetic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.22.240.9 ( talk) 03:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Has anyone confirmed this yet?( MgTurtle ( talk) 18:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC))
I found this article about Jenna Jameson after last night's commercial breaks kept showing a trailer for Zombie Strippers.
My whole-hearted thanks must go to all the Wikipedia editors who have spent hours of their time creating this well researched and documented article.
It so important for future generations to know about a woman who'd been double-teamed, spit-roastd and screwed in the ass for money.
Like a wise sage once noted, 'porn exists because the world is full of wankers!!'
I say in the case of porn i would be willing to do some 'revisionist history' here and omit all that porn. so when aliens come to our planet or future civilizations come to study our past world, i wouldnt have to be ashamed to have existed in such a world. Dioxholster ( talk) 14:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Pornography has always been exploitation of the customer, yet it is most often the potential providers of services who complain about it. Ditto prostitution. 76.69.85.161 ( talk) 09:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Jenna II RX10D Rhoads. Not the most noteworthy item, but here's the link: http://www.jacksonguitars.com/products/products.php?group=Rhoads-Body&page=1&product=2940012399 65.92.123.95 ( talk) 02:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Please either yank this article or edit it to conform to the standards to which it is purportedly held by its very publisher, Wikipedia. It does not merit its current status as a "featured article." Who on earth was novice enough to make such a designation? The Bronze Star is awarded for an article which is "...well-written: its prose...engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard..." (Wikipedia Standards manual). This article is not. It is a rambling presentation of fragmented events, loosely chronological, with no better than middle-school language usage (See Flesch-Kincaid Standardized Readability Scores). I had never heard of this person until encountering her name in The Atlantic Monthly (December, 2008, Portrait of an Ultimate Fighter by David Samuels, p 96). That this appalling drivel is considered "well-written...engaging...brilliant...and...professional" is apologistic inclusion of drek, not unlike the subject itself, guided by the overweening editorial hand of a horny kid. I would edit the article myself but, fortunately, I know nothing about the subject except this improperly qualified "feature article." Prime-daedalus ( talk) 23:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
It appears the non-free cover-art images are being used in violation of WP:FUC. I'm just curious if these images have been discussed before, or if anyone defends their use in the article, or is it OK if I remove them as being in violation? - Andrew c [talk] 21:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Urgent cleanup is needed here, (see Wikipedia:Featured articles/Cleanup listing), or this article should be submitted to WP:FAR. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
It was added seemingly without discussion by this user. I have not seen them used like this anywhere else, and unless someone objects or can give me a good reason for them to be there, I will change it back. Nymf talk/ contr. 20:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
5'7 ?? LOL, I think not. 5'4 at best.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.109.16.167 ( talk • contribs) 19:34, April 26, 2010
The Jenna Jameson PETA.jpg image is broken, can someone upload a new one? -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 10:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Jenna is still starring in films.Jenna loves kobe just came out this year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.190.130 ( talk) 17:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Ref 132 and 139 are dead - what to do with these? Testales ( talk) 18:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I've now checked the rest too, so here is a complete list of references that have problems or are dead (meaning at least I couldn't load them):
Testales ( talk) 18:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |