Talk:Annabel Chong

NPOV

I don't know anything about Annabel Chong, but this article does need NPOV-ing. It's definitely written from a definite perspective, as evidenced by lines as these:

Her work in pornography attempted to challenge the settled notions and assumptions of viewers about female sexuality. Because she did this, she was not a very popular performer among reviewers who were seeking titillation and who have a general misogynistic bent.

For example, her conception of a gangbang was based on the example of Messalina, a wife of the emperor Claudius. Messalina is not held in high regard by Roman historians, largely because of gender bias (although Messalina had other character defects as well.)

I'm sure that the reviewers and Roman historians have some other perspectives here... Martijn Faassen 01:39, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

article discrepancies

Was it 251 men or 80? The article says "80 with 251 claimed" earlier on and then talks about the 251st man. Also needs NPOVing.

80 men recycled 251 times --ColinHunt 23:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

She is awesome dudes

Gang raped

I suppose any Londoner would be a bit surprised that someone can be gangraped in the London Underground. It´s closed after 1.00am, and it´s hardly ever deserted. What´s more it´s almost always very busy. I don´t know in the early 90´s, but nowadays there´s CCTV virtually everywhere. --87.102.38.45 15:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• She wasn't raped there. Whoever made that false claim had clearly never seen her documentary. The crime took place in one of those enclosures that hold the big steel rubbish bins under a council tower block. 86.17.246.75 15:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

In 'Sex: The Annabel Chong Story' she says her place of birth was London and not in Singapore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.137.116 (talk) 20:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok Anabelchong (talk) 02:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Real name?

There seems to be a rule against listing the real name of people who use stage names, such as pornographic actors. That is all well and good. But one of the chief sources for this article's assertions also gives her real name, along with much of the information contained in this article. So if her real name is not to be mentioned here, should the source be removed as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.81.155.59 (talk) 19:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The rule against using their real name is that we require a reliable source for it. All too often a "real name" for a porn star ends up being tracked back to IMDB or some online forum, neither of which counts as reliable. Now having it mentioned in a New York Times article (even if it's just a movie review) does count as a reliable source. Tabercil (talk) 22:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Stage names have a quite different function for adult industry performers than others. Virtually none use their real name. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons has a section 'Presumption in favor of privacy' about names WP:BLPPRIVACY which states that information should be reliable and not something that the person could reasonably be inferrred to have an objection to being included. Chong has in fact taken steps to conceal her personal information, so I don't think we can assume she has no objection to a slew of details on her current life appearing in the Wikipedia article which is not about her, but about a part of her life that ended a decade ago. Other articles about adult industry performers do not use the real name, for example the one on C. J. Laing, does not mention her real name or what she currently does for a living, or her current hobbies. It does not add anything to the article to mention such details.Overagainst (talk) 12:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

That's taking BLPPRIVACY out of context - that only makes mention about date of birth and details such as their home address. And we do have real names of other porn stars on Wikipedia in cases where reliable sources have been found - see for instance Jenna Jameson, Stormy Daniels, Linda Lovelace, Nina Hartley, Amber Lynn, Tom Byron, Sasha Grey, Belladonna (actress), Ginger Lynn, Katie Morgan, Mary Carey (entertainer), Shyla Stylez, Nacho Vidal, Lexington Steele... Tabercil (talk) 14:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

On top of that, I dug through the BLP archive to see what (if any) precedent I could find that covers this circumstance. The closest I could find was this where apparently the community rejected a request from the subject to remove that she was a pornstar from her article. Tabercil (talk) 15:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

And speaking of BLP, I've raised the question on the topic board - see Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Proactive presumption of privacy? Tabercil (talk) 15:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The factual information that the subject wanted removed was the notable thing about her. If she wanted her real name out an article about her adult work which used her stage name as a title that would be relevant. While it's obviously true that there are some articles which give the real name and activities (outside of tha adult industry) of porn performers, the articles you cite are about people who are currently active performers/ producers in the adult industry, or relatively recently retired. They are insulated from the problems that having intrusive details about them in a WP article bring, because they are not now trying to earn a living in an entirely different line of work, like Ms. Chong. Surely it is a reasonable inference that retired performers who have moved on in their lives do not want to have their real names in a WP article. I have no objection to your real name being on your user page Tabercil! Overagainst (talk) 16:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Two more names for you: Penny Flame and Julie Meadows. Both are no longer in the porn business yet both articles prominently state what their real names are. Additionally, let me point something out to you: you mention "a reasonable inference". Our job is not to guess at what the subject of the article wants or does not want in the article about them. Our task to be adhere to the three pillars: verifiable, a neutral point of view and no original research. BLP does not override any of those three policies; instead it simply raises the bar a little higher as to the quality of information we use in building the article (from BLP: "We must get the article right."). In the absence of hearing from the subject, accuracy takes precedence over embarrassment. And I strongly suspect that if Ms. Chong were to write and ask to remove us to remove the name, we would reject the request as the name's out there and it's been used by a number of very reliable sources; trying to remove it would be like King Canute trying to roll the tide back. And lastly what are you talking about? My real name is not present at all on my user page... Tabercil (talk) 18:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Proactive presumption of privacy? as there's more eyes present. Tabercil (talk) 19:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Ex-adult industry performers yes, but neither of those two are now working in an everyday occupation, and that is surely why they don't have a problem with a Wikipedia article giving their real identity. Katja Kassin still uses her stage name on the net, but is retired and in education, her article doesn't give her real name. The main point is that Ms. Chong is in a everyday line of work where it may reasonably be inferred that she could suffer harm to her career prospects through her DoB, real name, current occupation, leisure activities and location all being in the article as an ongoing collation of details that have nothing to do with the decade old adult career that is the subject of the page 'Annabel Chong'. Why don't you use your real name on Wikipedia? Overagainst (talk) 20:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Because we have this category: Wikipedia:Admins willing to make difficult blocks. I'm not willing to put myself in there. Tabercil (talk) 04:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Tabercil,'Talk' involves a certain amount of back and forth as people examine their attitudes and modify them under criticism. Four editor's first reaction was to disagree with me but I have come back and cited WP guidance to support my position. I think the debate is still ongoing, could you be a little patient. Someone said at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Proactive presumption of privacy? thread "if it's RS'ed, it's fair game". I think that's the wrong attitude to take. RS'ed or not, the subject falls under underWP:NPF:- " people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known." As a person she is not well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, focusing on high quality secondary sources. Material published by the subject may be used, but with caution". The thing that sets this case apat is that was not an actress. Someone working in a mundane occupation who had their real name , DoB, current occupation, location and hobbies mentioned in a Wikipedia article about an acting career they had under a stage name several years ago, thereby revealing they are that person, would hardly suffer any harm. The case of a former porn performer now working in an everyday occupation is different, there is a potential for harm that does not exist for a former actor. Biographies of living persons: "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.[1] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity [...] Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." It is there in black and white that " sensitivity" and "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." And those considerations come first. Even if the information does " adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies: Neutral point of view (NPOV) Verifiability (V) No original research (NOR)" we must consider the possibility of harm. Identifying someone as a former Adult industry performer clearly does have the possibility to harm them. I think leaving her real name and current occupation out of the article is in the spirit of the Biographies of living persons - Presumption in favor of privacy section on several grounds, I have cited them above. In a nutshell- she could suffer harm. . Overagainst (talk) 16:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Tabercil your last edit is absurd and all over the place, it switches between use of the full real name and the stage name is thoughout. The rule is that a person's first name is only used once, after that the second name is used throughout the article. It is absurd to switch back and forth between a real and stage name. Moreover your current edit wrongly implies that she changed her name to her stage name ("**** by now also calling herself Chong" & "After Chong resumed her real name of ****"). Overagainst (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

All I did was rolled the article back to the most recent solid instance where it mentioned her name and stuck a cite pointing to the NY Times article as a source for it - see here as proof. Tabercil (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert myself right now, but I don't think this is a good edit for pretty much all the reasons elucidated above. Ideally I'd like to hear from someone else before reverting, though. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Only post-porn occupation hobbies and location details were completely removed, but I was not the only person who thought they should be. The first thing under an article title should not be something completely different that suggests the article is about a non-notable person's life, post-porn career. On that logic there would be a redirect of the real name to the porn career pseudonym which is the title of the article. My edit removed only some uses of the name; the egregious and incongruous ones, overuses that seemed to be there for their own sake. Editors thought the name should remain in the article, and I accepted that and did leave it in. I think my edit is a compromise that has some consensus, and strong support from Biographies of living persons: "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.[1] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity [...] Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. [...] When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment."Overagainst (talk) 19:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Right - consensus on the WT:BLP page is that the real name can indeed be part of the article. So that's going in there - end of discussion. Now, how it is to be presented within it should be the same as it's done in other biography articles. It doesn't matter if the subject is living or dead, the format is the same. The Vivian Leigh article is a good template to follow for format issues since it's a featured article (from WP:FA: "They are used by editors as examples for writing other articles."). So I am reverting Overagainst's last edit on those grounds. Tabercil (talk) 22:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Nom de porn

John Wayne is dead, he was hardly likely to suffer harm from the mention of his real name. As has been mentioned, an actor's stage name is quite different. The pseudonym of a LIVING former porn performer is quite sufficient for most uses in a short article about their porn career, providing it is made clear that it is their former pseudonym which is being used. No context is lost in my edit and the name is there as what it is. What is the point of an infobox that does not have info not in the rest of the article?Overagainst (talk) 21:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

To answer your last question first, nothing. The infobox is generally used in articles as a quick summary of what is there in the article. It doesn't contain citations, except maybe for religion. As to the first, the standard is to use the birth name where we mention the "birth" part. I think the consensus was to include the real name in the article, but not emphasize it. The standard way to do that is to include it once, and the statement of where she was born is usually the right place for that. I don't quite get the point; are you saying it is less prominent in the infobox? Churn and change (talk) 21:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Info box is not a lede, infoboxs need to give sources. I don't think you have taken on board the difference between identifying a living person who has chosen to lead a life of 'peace and obscurity' as someone who was once a pornographic-performer, and providing the real or birth name in a standard bio article. I don't think the name should be there at all, but as a compromise if the name has to be in the article it should be there as what it is, a name other than the porn-pseudonym/article title that she was known by; the infobox has a field for 'other names'. The privacy and harm concerns are certainly great enough to obviate the usual specifying that someone was "Born **** *****". It's not like she has legally changed her name to her porn-pseudonym while pursuing a post-porn career with notability, like Traci Lords has. And it is far from certain that the subject was born in Singapore.

It ought not be necessary to say this, given the "This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons" notice above, but the person who had an adult industry career under the pseudonym which is the title of the article is alive. The aforementioned policy mandates a "high degree of sensitivity", "regard for the subject's privacy" and that " the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment". The word 'must' is used, it's not something we can decide to ignore because a few people want to. The consensus was not on this talk page, which is the proper place for discussion of article, but at the BLP talk page where an editor decided to take it for his own reasons. It paid off as he got support, (his supporters included someone who said the subject was "fair game" and another who compared her to a convicted murderer).Overagainst (talk) 09:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Eliminate the "Infobox". Just have the photo. An Infobox is potentially problematic. This is especially so if we are concerned with "sensitivity", which is what I think Overagainst is calling our attention to. The presentation of information in an Infobox is unnecessary. It is inessential to a well-written article. The Infobox adds prominence to information. That added prominence can be uncalled for. Bus stop (talk) 23:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to argue against that. I personally feel that all biographies should have fundamentally the same information and format, irregardless of whether the subject works as a porn star, rock star, rock splitter, meat splitter, meat packer or is just a plain ol' Packer. Most biography articles have infoboxes, especially if they're past stub stage, and from what I can tell most articles mention the subject's real name just twice: once at the start of the "Early Life" section (e.g., "Jane Joe was born Janette Jonowski...") and once in the infobox. Tabercil (talk) 22:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Tabercil said, "I personally feel that all biographies should have fundamentally the same information and format". But WP does not agree, else why is there is special guidance on bios of living people? Tabercil said" most articles mention the subject's real name " Can you cite cite a single case of a living person former porn performer working in a regular job under her real name, who has their real name and current occupation in the article? The closest there is, is (featured article) Jenna Jameson. But although she is a living person and a former porn star, she's running with the name and is a celeb of sorts. Tabercil said " most articles mention the subject's real name just twice: once at the start of the "Early Life" section (e.g., "Jane Joe was born Janette Jonowski...") and once in the infobox." The format 'born as' with the real name in bold at begining of article brings up the article 1st on a google of the name. Employers ect do google names. So it matters. It's ridiculous to compare bios of people with notabilty deriving from sports who have always been known under their real names to former porn performers. Infoboxes are a waste of time if they repeat info in the article.Overagainst (talk) 19:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I would note that ref 1 is cited for the oh-so-vital update on how she was earning a living in 2008, under what name, and a zillion other things ( "a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa"). This despite it being an online article that quotes the subject's personal e-mail correspondence saying she wants to stay out of anything to do with publicity over the adult career. Did she authorize this use of her Emails? It doesn't read like it. Ref 8 is similar, not a proper newspaper, it explains how she won't talk to anyone about the adult career, and had taken steps to try and prevent people tracking her home address down through her name. Presumably because people were doing just that. Overagainst (talk) 20:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Post porn occupation

Given that the real name is in the article, and if that ref which quotes her personal Emails to a third party is going is considered valid, I don't think her exact occupation, as of 2008, should be in the article as well. There is clearly a potential for harm to the subject. At most it should be something like "working in information technology".Overagainst (talk) 16:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

language of birth name

Chong was born Grace Quek (Chinese: 郭盈恩; pinyin: Guō Yíng'ēn) …

The final k of Quek suggests that her native language is more likely Cantonese than Mandarin, so why use a Mandarin-pinyin transliteration? —Tamfang (talk) 06:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Chinese Anabelchong (talk) 02:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Chinese Anabelchong (talk) 02:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I know it's Chinese —Tamfang (talk) 00:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Annabel Chong. 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/20140110091626/https://www.catapultmagazine.com/top-ten-2/film-review/reviving-messalina to https://www.catapultmagazine.com/top-ten-2/film-review/reviving-messalina
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130509133322/http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/entertainment/view/267144/1/.html to http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/entertainment/view/267144/1/.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)