Talk:Belle Knox

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Belle Knox article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Low-importance).

Pornography Mid‑importance

	Erotica and pornography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PornographyWikipedia:WikiProject PornographyTemplate:WikiProject PornographyPornography articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Washington Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Washington (assessed as Low-importance).

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Keep, 18 September 2014, see discussion.
Delete, March 7 2014, see discussion.

Archives

Archive 1

Belle Knox

No discussion on Belle Knox and yet it has been nominated for deletion 2 times by haters?--150.216.254.207 (talk) 00:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith! The problem is that first, the article was initially deleted and the talk history from that first version does not show up on the current talk page. You can see it in the talk page history and I'll see if I can get it archived somehow. As far as the nominations go, the first nomination came when the story had just broken and there were concerns that everything fell under WP:BLP1E. In a nutshell, that policy is concerned with the idea that someone might have gained coverage for something that is fleeting and would ultimately be forgotten in a few weeks or so. Daniel Morgan Perry and the Ikea Monkey are excellent examples of things that gained quite a bit of coverage at first but had no lasting notability and did not gain any real further coverage. When the page was re-created a little bit ago, it didn't have that much coverage or content compared to the last version and given the discussion at the last AfD, it's reasonable to be concerned over lasting notability and taking the article back to AfD was the right thing to do in this instance. While Knox's reasons for coverage are contentious for obvious reasons, people nominating her article for deletion does not automatically mean that they are "haters". Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've made an archive of the contents and you can view it via the box above. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SVU episode

http://uproxx.com/tv/2014/10/whats-on-tonight-svu-does-its-duke-porn-star-episode/ Gaijin42 (talk) 01:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about how to properly include this and I think a simple mention using the XOJane article she wrote might be easiest under the heading of "Advocacy",

http://www.xojane.com/it-happened-to-me/belle-knox-evie-barnes-law-and-order-svu. Yes, its a primary source, but it does describe the producers intentions for the episode to mirror Knox's situation. --SChotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since the episode mirrors essentially the early porn and outing story, I was thinking a sentence or so in the Belle_Knox#Outing_and_harassment might be appropriate.

One important BLP detail in that xojane story is Knox saying she was raped (although unless I missed it, the story does not say when or under what circumstances, so I don't know if it was earlier in her life, or during her porn career). Gaijin42 (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if there is adequate sourcing that is much more relevant than the SVU pop culture reference. I reduced the SVU coverage to one sentence as suggested above; I think more than that would be unnecessary. VQuakr (talk) 06:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Parents' names

I have removed the parents' names. While we had a source for them, they do not significantly improve our readers' understanding of Knox, are not themselves notable, and should have the benefit of a presumption of privacy. Huon (talk) 20:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable. VQuakr (talk) 02:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter username @belle_knox no longer hers

It now has only a single tweet, which apparently advertises a cam site. 71.183.132.20 (talk) 02:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Before her website closed she mentioned she deleted all the social media accounts. From the archive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.81.147.8 (talk) 12:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Knox

An IP editor removed mention that she was exonerated without comment. We should not let people reading this assume she really did it. The wording is up to date, but guiltism when she isn't guilty is unacceptable. I restored the wording as it was months ago. DreamGuy (talk) 16:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

studying

There reads: Knox took a college-sanctioned break from Duke University in early 2014[11] and returned to continue her studies.
She took a break from university and continued studies? Huh? Isn't the university the place study? Or does it mean she later returned? I read the current sentence the way that the break and the return happened in same time. And it makes no sense. 91.152.32.181 (talk) 20:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified with "later".--TMCk (talk) 21:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"After the outing"

In the introductory paragraph, the above phrase is used to begin a sentence, without the subject of her exposure as a porn actor having been touched upon. It assumes the reader will be aware of this occurrence beforehand. Amend, someone, please. Nuttyskin (talk) 12:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC) Nuttyskin (talk) 12:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity

According to this article, she is from English and German ancestry, but she really seems Indian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:BD08:FD8:6E04:DAD0 (talk) 13:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources

Mitzelman, Tracy (2018). "Sex Work in the 21st Century". SUNY Oneonta Academic Research (SOAR): A Journal of Undergraduate Social Science. 2.
Sullivan, Rebecca; McKee, Alan (2015). Pornography: Structures, Agency and Performance. Polity Press. ISBN 978-0-7456-9484-9.

Could be useful for building the article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Updates

I'm not particularly fond of the NYP, but she probably ok for sourcing harmless no political content such as graduation information and age for which the article should be updated. However i'm a bit miffed that it seem to rely on page 6 interview in which it seems a bit unclear who actually interviewed on her current state. Other publications carrying more or less the same info are:

Independent of updating age and education, there is after movie now also a theater play based on her which could/should be included in the article.

https://t2conline.com/exposed-lets-talk-about-sex-and-porn/

--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kmhkmh: The guidance for the NY Post says, generally not reliable, especially about politics, not exclusively about politics. Page Six is the New York Post, not the 'New York Times. The Daily Mail has an even stronger warning and its use is flagged by edit filter. The other links refer back to Page Six/NY Post with the general caveat of "allegedly." In general, a contentious statement supported junk sources. If you can't find mainstream source that states this as a fact, it's best to leave it out. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]