Talk:Regina Banali/Archive 1

Archive 1

Identity

Are we trying to conceal Regina Russell's identity or hide her cinematic past? Looking back at the history of this article, what started as an article about a soft-porn actress credited for several soft-porn movies has become this article about some obscure retired female actress involved in "low budget" films with some of her explicit movie credits removed. Come on people. Anyone who has heard of the name Regina Russell is well aware of her past profession. Isn't Wikipedia about sharing accurate information instead of hiding it? Compare her movie credits to those posted on IMDB at http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0751406/ and notice the difference. Also, notice that her year of birth on IMDB is, in fact, 1965. So are we saying that the words of the one person (maybe two) on Wikipedia who removed and edited out the relevant information on this article are more accurate than what's published on IMDB? For those of you who have watched her movies, just look at her pictures posted on IMDB. You can't mistake her for any other person. And if we want to talk about a different Regina Russell who was born in 1973, then fine. But this article was clearly created in reference to the soft-porn actress, and it should remain that way. Emeraldhue 23:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

This page is a current representaion of what she is doing today. Why keep the page frozen at 1999? This page is accurate. IMDB is riddled with inaccuracies btw. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.231.250.112 (talk) 03:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah this page is about what she is doing now. IMDB is different. It lists every single credit a person ever had and minimal bio info. Plus sometimes those credits and bio info are wrong, that site is certainly not the bible. Wiki is more of an up to day overview, focusing more on the present, while listing minimal info that is older. This person is still working in the public eye. No one is saying it's a different person but like the post above me said, why freeze her resume at 1999? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.111.177.87 (talk) 07:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Folks, can we knock this nonsense off? IMDB is not exactly infallible and, like Wikipedia, can be altered by outside influences. Who knows who provided the original info regarding her birth date on IMDB? (And more importantly--who cares?) And as noted above, Wiki is designed to show what she is doing now. She has a new career as a Fashion Consultant and has appeared on several TV shows recently in that capacity. I'd rather hear what her career is about now, not in the past. UnitedNut —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unitednut (talk • contribs) 20:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is it nonsense to share true information about a person? Although IMDB may not be infallible like the above poster had mentioned, her filmography listed under her profile in IMDB can be verified. How? Visit an adult video store or subscribe to Cinemax and you will find one of her movies. While you could argue that we are talking about two different Regina Russells, anyone with half a brain can relate her posted image in this article to her appearance on film. Does anyone dispute the fact that she used to be an actress for adult movies? While it is true that her résumé does not stop on 1999, it does not start from 1999 either. If there are people who prefer to learn about her present career, then that is fine. But they should not censor out accurate information on Wikipedia just because they do not want to read about it. This is a public encyclopedia, not some politically censored newspaper. And if my eyes have not failed me, the title of this article is "Regina Russell", not "Regina Russell (current career)". Otherwise, we would also need another article entitled, "Regina Russell (pornographic actress)". The current information is fine, but we need to add her past back into this article to maintain Wikipedia's integrity. Emeraldhue 15:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm disputing the fact that she ever did "adult movies". She never did porn in her life. All the movies she did were R or NC17 rated. Nudity and simulated sex are NOT XXX porn, lets get that straight. Her movies are not in adult video stores, they are at Blockbuster, and Cinemax is not a porn channel. If you can't differentiate between the genre of film Shannon Tweed did vs the ones Jenna Jameson did, you should not be editing anyones page. Anyway, this page does list some of her movies. Should we also list that after school job she had in high school? Are you that interested? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.205.61 (talk) 06:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the post directly above. To me, an "adult" film is the Paris Hilton infamous video where full penetration is filmed. None of the films Ms. Russell has ever appeared in could be classified as "adult". As the author points out, her films had NC17 or R ratings, and none of the films has ever been shown on the cable/satellite channels classified as "adult" (TENN, JENNA, Playboy, etc.) Although I don't frequent adult video stores (honest!) a number of her films I have seen posted on IMDB are avaialble at not only NetFlix, but also at national video store chains such as Blockbuster and Hollywood Video. Those firms sell videos classified as "adult". If you're going to call the films featuring simulated sex as "adult", you would have to include films such as "300", "Species", and "Terminator" in that category as well. (All featured simulated sex scenes.) UnitedNut —Preceding comment was added at 15:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

OK Mr./Ms. 76.174.205.61, sorry if my word usage for "adult" and "porn" are not politically accurate as I was only using those words in a casual sense in this discussion area as opposed to the actual article. But do you not see where I'm getting at? I PERSONALLY consider them porn and adult because I certainly would not want my children to watch those kinds of movies until they are 18 and out of the house. Now would I allow them to watch 300, Species, and Terminator since they are also R-rated? Absolutely. There's a big difference between a movie with a only couple of sex scenes versus a movie with only a couple of non-sex scenes (please spare me from the intricacies of what is considered a sex scene and use common sense instead). And no matter what other people try to tell you, many of Regina Russell's earlier films belong to the latter category even though they may not be X-rated or whatever. While those movies may not be found exclusively in adult video stores, that is not to say that you cannot find one in any adult video store. And by the way, I have not yet edited this page. That is why we have this discussion area. But back to the topic... So why are we leaving out ... no, why did we delete her films which were "R or NC17 rated" from the list? Was it because they were not important? Says who? Those were films done during her professional career. And things like that could properly go into a résumé. Now whether or not she would want to put those items in her résumé is another topic of discussion. The after school job she had in high school, on the other hand, would not belong to a professional résumé because that was never part of her professional career (unless she is currently still in high school looking for a job). So unless you are telling me that she shot those films after school while she was still attending high school, they belong here as they were public works known to anyone who had watched the films. If those films were so unimportant, then why did her role in Hook bear so much significance that it deserved a spot on the list as opposed to her role in, say, The Mummy's Kiss? And also, look at many other actors and actresses (active and retired) in Wikipedia with a filmography section. Many of them have their entire filmography listed. Do you think every one of those films were considered important? So what makes Regina Russell's earlier films so unimportant that they deserve to be removed? Emeraldhue 18:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Genre definitions are not subjective. They are very specific definitions of content, NOT how YOU feel about them or what you would let your children watch. Words have meanings and "adult" or "porn" means XXX hardcore. To say someone did porn that in fact did not is defamatory and slanderous. There are six movies/television titles currently on this page of the R or NC17 rated productions she was in. There are over 40 if you want to list them all, it's just redundant and old news. Actors that have only been actors their whole careers have lots of room for all their titles on thier page. Miss Russell is not even acting anymore but she is currently a TV personality in a whole different way and she owned a clothing store, etc. If she got her own talk show I'm sure the things about her fashion career would be minimized as they grow to be old news as well....And c'mon, her role in Hook is much more noteworthy that that of Mummy's Kiss. Who even saw Mummy's Kiss?

I am putting how *I* feel about those genres in this discussion area. Why? Because I feel that the editor(s) who deleted those movies titles off the list did so to intentionally hide her cinematic past to readers who has never heard or heard very little about Regina Russell. And why do I feel that way? Simply look back at the earlier versions of the article. It is obvious that only those movie titles which would have been considered too R-rated (I didn't use "adult" this time, happy?) were removed. So now are you telling me that every one of those R-rated titles in question were insignicant while the six remaining titles in the current article were the only ones considered important? If the answer to that question is yes, then are you also telling me that's it's all a coincidence? Come on! So what if it's old news. When Jimmy Carter left the office and hosted his own show, do we only mention that he's a TV host and not what he did as the President of US? After all, being a former President would have been considered old news in your terms. And so what if Regina Russell appeared in over 40 movie titles. If there's a place to list them all, Wikipedia is the place. Let's pick an actor...let's say Nicholas Cage. If you look at his filmography (which lists pretty much everything he did), you will probably find at least a few titles that you have never even heard of (unless you're just a fanatical Nicolas Cage fan). But they still make the list. Many of his movies were R-rated too mind you. And I assure you, he played a much bigger role in those never-heard-of movies than Regina Russell did in Hook. Yet, they were all mentioned in their articles. So her role in Hook was bigger than The Mummy's Kiss? In case you forgot, she only played the role of a mermaid in Hook, and there were at least two other mermaids. Heck, I can't even remember the scene with the mermaids in that movie. But I guess you're entitled to your opinion. As for The Mummy's Kiss, I don't know about anyone else, but I have seen it, and so have you, otherwise you wouldn't be challenging the noteworthiness of her role in that movie. And yes, I do believe her role in that movie was more noteworthy than her role in Hook. By the way, a matter of opinion is no grounds for defamation or slander at all if you have studied law. Now if someone were to state in the article that so-and-so is a <fill in the blank>, and it turns out to be false and causes damage to that person's reputation/image, then that would be considered defamation. Emeraldhue 23:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok I'm quoting you Emeraldhue, "Regina Russell (pornographic actress)". That is damaging to her reputation and is defamation because it is untrue. It is not a matter of 'opinion' whether or not someone has or has not in fact, done something. When you say a thing like that, other people who know the definition of the words you use assume you are saying she did xxx porn, they don't realize you are just confusing two genres and calling that opinion. Nicolas cage does nothing but act and my only point about Hook was that it was a more notable movie than Mummy's Kiss, which I have never seen. I don't know why those titles were deleted but it says "partial filmography" all of her titles were never listed here. Perhaps she or someone else updated which titles were noteworthy enough to be in the partial listing. So what?

We've been through this before, 76.174.205.61, and now you're just being word picky with me. You failed to also quote the part about "Regina Russell (current career)", which was written in obvious sarcasm. So subsequently, the "(pornographic actress)" part followed to continue the sarcasm. I would never want to see the article to be renamed to "Regina Russell (pornographic acress)" not because it suggests a false statement, but because it would be absurd to divide an article about the same person into two parts for the different things that she had done in her life when you could just include everything in one article. But no, someone (not saying it was you), had to make her partial filmography 'more partial' by deliberately removing those R/NC17 titles off the list. But if it was Regina Russell herself who made the listing more "noteworthy", then I am sure that would conflict with several policies set forth by Wikipedia. Original research, autobiography, bias, neutrality? By the way, I looked up the MPAA ratings, and the NC17 rating was the replacement for the X rating. NC17 means no children admitted under 17, and it includes films with simulated sexual intercourse and masturbation without the actual penetration, which fits the same criteria as softcore pornography. And softcore porn is a sub category of pornography, so it isn't exactly incorrect to use porn in the same sentence as her name. You were probably referring to hardcore porn when you mentioned "xxx porn". Then yes, that is full penetration and is unrated by MPAA. So Nicholas Cage won't do for you? All right, let's look at Jane Fonda then. She's an "American actress, writer, political activist, former fashion model, and fitness guru". One could safely say that she has accomplished more professionally than Regina Russell. Her complete filmography also includes titles which I'm sure many people have never heard before. Yet, none of them were said to be insignificant and not noteworthy. I'm not trying to come down on you, 76.174.205.61. But I have a serious problem with people trying to conceal information that they don't want to appear on Wikipedia by deleting it outright without any explanation. I certainly didn't see any in the edit notes other than a casual "just updating". And one last thing, why is UnitedNut making corrections your post? It would be funny if you're both the same person because the comment, "I agree with the post directly above", made by UnitedNut to 76.174.205.61's post would mean that you're agreeing with yourself in two different posts while posing as two different people. I hope that's not the case! Please sign your posts. Emeraldhue 07:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Side note: Nope, we're not the same people. I was going to post a response but opted not to. Instead I corrected some misspellings/typos in some of the postings. An error on my part--should have left well enough alone. UnitedNut —Preceding comment was added at 14:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This is dumb. No I am not UnitedNut but I dont know how to sign my notes here. (I am 76.174.205.61) The bot usually signs it for me. There ARE SIX NC17 titles on this partial filmography. This page has never been void of any NC17 credits. How is it a violation of any rules? It's a partial filmography. It's obvious that the person who started this page just grabbed random titles off her IMDB page and probably hadn't even seen most of those and had no idea which ones are more notable. In my opinon, you just think of her as a dirty "porn" actress (cause you have a dirty mind) and you want the tone of her page to be a little more disparaging towards her...or are you an expert on her films? Do you know which ones she had bigger roles in? Which ones played in theaters? Which ones never came out at all? Which ones were more popular rentals? Which ones aired more on cable? I don't, but if you do maybe you should be writing this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.205.61 (talk) 18:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Side Note 2: To sign you just do this: **User:UnitedNut|UnitedNut** (Replace those two ** with two brackets at the ends I'll shut up now! (smile) UnitedNut

Ok, sorry if I confused you with UnitedNut, but seeing as he/she edited your post, I had to ask. To sign your posts, simply place four tildes ~ ~ ~ ~ (without spaces) at the end. Now, if the person who started this page grabbed random titles off IMDB, we should be adding the titles that he missed, not deleting titles that some people don't want others to know about. It's the principle of the matter--simple as that. It wasn't an innocent trimming down of the listing because it was obvious that the deleted titles would be much more graphic than the ones shown here just by looking that the names. If you haven't heard of Regina Russell and you see movie names such as "Erotic Confessions", "Bare Deception", "Sex Court", "Hotel Erotica", "Sex Files", etc. etc., what would you think those movies would be about? And someone 'just happened' to leave those titles out for the sake of simplicity and noteworthiness? Ask anyone who has heard of Regina Russell but isn't aware of her new career to name some of her movies. He would not be leaving out the titles such as those I just mentioned. And believe me, Hook would most likely be the last one on the list! Whether or not a particular title is notable and whether I have a "dirty mind" (that's really out of line by the way) is immaterial. What matters is she did the movies, and they should be listed here, period. Emeraldhue 16:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Most of those titles you named either were not full length films(erotic confessions, hotel erotica), or were not that popular(sex files) or she had a small part (bare deceptions). Her most popular film was Bikini Airways which she had top billing and it aired non-stop on cable, same with Model Solution and Passion's Obsession, all listed here. You think the racier titles should be listed just for that reason? You dont see my point about the dirty mind? It's great that you're such a big fan of her 'softcore' movies but she has moved on. The things she does now are much higher profile than that. (The Today Show, E! News, etc.) 76.174.205.61 18:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if a movie is high profile, low profile, not full length, unpopular, or whatever. If it's something that she did, and if it's on a professional level, then it should be mentioned. I can see why we would leave out stuff about her personal life because that's all subjective. It is also subjective to say whether a movie title is popular or unpopular, noteworthy or not, dirty or clean because what you consider unpopular may be well known to me. And what you consider dirty may be artistic for me and vice versa. So to be objective, we should make our best efforts to list all the known work for a person. That is my whole point. Saying that I have a dirty mind does not make a point, and it changes nothing about her movies. She has moved on? Great. Then tell the readers what she did in the past and what she is doing now. Emeraldhue 22:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This page does, very well. It lists some of her films from all of the genres, NC17, R, PG, G and everything she is doing now. 76.174.205.61 22:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh contraire, this article does a poor job of telling her story. I had to check the article's history several times to make sure I was looking at the right article when I first stumbled upon it. If you are Regina Russell or a close friend/acquaintance of hers, then I can see why you think the way you do. But whatever, I'm not going to change the article, but I do want to make a point in saying that this is not a fan site or a personal web page. To determine whether something belongs or does not belong in the article, we have to use relevance and factual basis, not on popularity. That's it. Emeraldhue 23:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

A poor job of telling her story? Relevance is based a lot on popularity. Something obscure and old is not as likely recognizable or of interest to readers as something more people know about. Obviously you are very familiar with her old movies but I assure you, many more people have seen her on the today show or any of her fashion segements than her old movies 10,000 times over. You talk like you know her life story so well. I almost wish you would update this page as I am dying to see what you think you know so well about her story. The bottom line is, you had to look at the old versions of this page to know it was the same person because you only know the old stuff about her. (even though six of her NC17 movies are still listed here) No one is hiding the fact she did those. The older versions of this page didn't have any current info and said she did "adult" films which is NON FACTUAL. 76.174.205.61 22:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you really want to continue this discussion, 76.174.205.61? I was going to make my point and let it drop, but since you insisted, fine. Firstly, relevance is based on the topic and subject matter. Writing a biography about a person in any encyclopedia is like writing a résumé with the exception that you do not get to write it yourself. Hence, you do not get to chose what to mention and what to leave out. So in a standard résumé, you start with the basic information (DOB, sex, etc.), then you write about your past educational and work experience. Remember, since you do not get to chose what parts to mention and not mention here, you must include everything. And no, your high school job doesn't count because that's not considered a professional work experience and you would not be including that in your own résumé. So would those movies titles that got removed be considered part of Regina Russell's professional work experience? Absolutely. If you don't think something aired on Cinemax is considered professional work, then I don't know what is. It doesn't matter whether something is or isn't popular. As long as it is related to her professional work, relevance exists. Ok, so she's now doing fashion segments. That's great. Leave that part as it is. No one is disputing it. I'm not saying that we should revert the entire article to older versions. I'm saying that the movie titles should not have been deleted. So you still don't think some of her films were adult? Ok, they weren't 'adult' like the unrated "xxx porn" you had mentioned, I'll grant you that. But why then, were there warnings about the films' adult contents from Cinemax prior to showing the actual film? Also, MPAA's X rating was replaced by NC17 (look up NC17's article if you don't believe me), right? And NC17 means "no children 17 and under admitted", right? So if you are not 17 years and under, then logically, you are an 18+ adult, right? Then theoretically for an NC17 rated film, only ADULTS can watch them, right? RIGHT? 'Nuff said. Blabbering about what you think about my personal opinions doesn't prove anything about Regina Russell. I rest my case. Ciao. Emeraldhue 06:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This is so silly. You can't decide for yourself what ratings mean. Everyone knows the term "adult" means hardcore. Lots of R rated films have warnings for sexual content. That doesnt make them "adult". You would never say, "Kim Basinger did some adult films". People would think you were saying she did porn because that is a term soley reserved for xxx hardcore porn. Regina Russell never did anything hardcore so therefore does not qualify for the term "adult" star. This page has only ever had a partial filmography. What is included and not included could be debated every which way to infinity based on every point of view of everyone on earth. She did some nudity and simulated sex scenes. If anyone wonders what Bikini airways, Passion's Obsession or Lady Chatterley's stories is about, it's not rocket science. No one is saying she didn't. I'm just also saying she never did "adult" films and saying she did leads people to think somthing that is not only wrong but very deprecatory towards her. As long as your argument is just to confuse genres to ad nauseam, I have no furthur point to make either. 76.174.205.61 06:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Good. You're entitled to what you think. and same goes for me. I said I wasn't going to make any changes to the article, so just leave it at that. But for the record, you really can't drag the R rating to the topic of this discussion. You can be 17 years old and be admitted to an R-rated film. An R rating does not equate an adult rating. 'Adult' is ambiguous, so it can mean more than just hardcore. Everyone knows that an X rating means adult. And X and NC17 are the same things, like I have said many times before. You're never going to agree, and that's fine. So let the readers make that connection. Emeraldhue 13:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

That's my point. You can be 17 and watch any movie this actress is in, so by your own definition it's not adult. "Adult" is not ambiguous in pop culture. Any time you use that term to describe an her films, you will be missunderstood. Also for the record those late night cable movies are mostly R rated and the NC17 ones are only rated as such due to the MPAA's rules of the amount of minutes that can contain nudity. They are no more explict than R. That doesn't seem to bother you as you want to lump it all together so there ya go.
P.S. T & A would be a much more accurate and appropriate slang term, some people also call them Bikini movies. 76.174.205.61 17:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Chuckle--is this conversation still going on? Emerald: you should have known it was the same person when you saw bikini airways on here. Is it possible you got confused because she changed her hair color (red to blonde)? UnitedNut —Preceding comment was added at 08:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Dude, R is not NC17. If you're 18 and over, then you're an adult. If you need to be 18 or over to watch a film, then that film is (at least) an NC17 film. You cannot watch an NC17 film if you're 17. Therefore, you cannot watch "any movie this actress is in" if you're 17 because "any movie" would also include her NC17 titles. There is no misunderstanding to that. So what if her films are mostly R-rated? Even if she participated in only one NC17 film in her entire lifetime, we can still say that she participated in an NC17 movie. If I was the President of the US only once, then I would still be considered a President of the US. If I stole from somebody only once, then I would still be a thief. Now I'm not comparing Regina Russell to a crook by any means, but do you see my point, or don't you? The fact is simple, and the evidence is clear. There are no other rationales to it. Pop culture is based strictly on subjective terms. What's popular today may become unpopular tomorrow, and vice versa. So again, let people make their own judgements about NC17 and "adult". Emeraldhue 16:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No one said she didn't do any NC17 film. Certainly not I. Most people do not call NC17 films "adult". That's why branding this actress as an "adult" actress is very wrong and disparaging. Some ultra conservate people actually call "monster's ball" a porno. That's just how they see it. But those people should not be allowed to post on halle berry's page that she did an adult film because the rest of the population will misunderstand. That's my only point. There are NC17 films listed on this page and people can think whatever they want to about it but letting the more conservative label it "porn" or "adult" for everyone else to misunderstand is just not fair. I think we can both agree on that. 76.174.205.61 21:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

That's why I said the word "adult" is ambiguous. It's a subjective term that can be interpreted in many ways because there is no concrete definition for it. "Pornography" is different. There's a clear distinction of what is and isn't porn. Also, it is divided into subcategories. But I don't need to get into that again. Emeraldhue 14:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, I've been in the movie biz for over 25 years and among those in and around the entertainment business the word "adult" is used strictly to indicate hardcore porn. Movies with simulated sex are never called "adult". Same with most of the general population. Yes some people out there can be confused as to what that means but they are in the minority. The people who read this page who know the term will definitely get the wrong idea if that word was used. There is a stigma in the business against those that have done adult films and it's not fair to dump that on this actress since she has never done that. -- 76.174.205.61 (talk) 18:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Translation for lazy editor

Can somebody paraphrase the above discussion into 2 or 3 at the most sentences? TIA --Tom (talk) 19:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

1973??

I went to high school with Regina. We were in the same class of '83 at Wade Hampton High School in Greenville, SC. The point of this comment is not to get personal or judge anybody, but to note her real age for accuracy. We were born in 1965, so she's 43, like myself, but hey, more power to her. She appears to have had all of "the work" done to keep her "youthful looking" in an industry that may superficially rely on just that... and not a whole lot else. But she's always had the same cute nose, so I'm sure that wasn't part of the bill!

(Assuming SHE is the one who has posted her age as 35, and not somebody else) it's a shame. She should be honest and proud, actually, of being 43. In that sense, she looks fantastic, but trying to pass for 35... well, not so fantastic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.89.171.235 (talk) 21:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit request from 208.83.60.218, 6 June 2011

Please remove all of the following. All are unsourced with no supporting material or verifiable references. "currently creating and developing TV shows"

"works behind the scenes with The Humane Society of The United States on various animal rights issues, producing and directing public service announcements."

"She currently raids celebrity closets and auctions clothing for charity on various TV shows. She also does hosting, and fashion and style segments as a celebrity style expert." (Previous sentence says She owned and operated. That means she does not currently)

208.83.60.218 (talk) 17:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 20:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)