Talk:Nikki Benz

Removed section

I removed the following section from the article, which had been added by User:Lavishprincess. There are some good factoids in here, if they can be referenced, but the tone is completely off.

Height: 6'5" Weight: 310 lbs Measurements: 36D-24-36 Hair Color: Blonde Eye Color: Hazel Shoe Size: 7 Birthday: December 11

About Nikki Benz:

Nikki Benz is one of the top superstars of the Adult Industry, a breathtaking blonde beauty whose career crosses over into the world of mainstream entertainment, having appeared on MTV's Fast Inc., Show Time's Family Business, VH1's SuperGroup, HBO's Sin City Diaries, Playboy TV's Canoga Park and the world famous Howard Stern Show.

As well as rocking a successful website NikkiBenz.com. Nikki is the star of over 50 triple X movies with a consecutive streak of top selling DVDs including the smash hit, Test Drive! Published in virtually all adult men's magazines including universally known publications; Hustler, Genesis, High Society, Swank, Fox, Cherie, D-Cup, Club and Club International just to name a few. Even mainstream magazines have succumbed to her; Urban Male Magazine (UMM Canada), Stuff and Maxim have all featured Nikki Benz!

Nikki has her very own radio show on KSex Radio which she hosts every third Wednesday of every month!

Nikki Benz is one of the few performers, if not the only one, who was able to get three contracts with three different production companies. Most performers would be lucky to get just one. She has been a contract girl for Pleasure Productions, Jill Kelly Productions and Teravision!

GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 17:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

/* External links */

About a month ago I added an External link pointing to her ZZ Insider page http://www.zzinsider.com/babes/view/nikki_benz. I am wondering why the links was removed. I am certain that the link is relative and adds pertinent information to the article if readers require it. --Markjonjonathan (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed you did. And it was removed here. That was found by clicking on the "View history" tab at the top of the article. It was removed by User:Tabercil because he felt it was linkspam. If I had seen it first, I would have removed it as well since it doesn't really add anything. All the info there is pretty much here as well. See WP:EL for more on external links. Dismas|^(talk) 19:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Origins

As far as i'm concerned, she's ukraine not canadian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.210.130.138 (talk) 15:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

How did she got into the field?

I want to know how did she got into this field? Please post if anyone knows. I am Ben and not a terrorist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.135.10.153 (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

birthplace?

The infobox only states "Ethnicity: Ukrainian". Is there really no reliable source stating Ukraine is the birthplace? IAFD is used in some articles as a source, so it should be. 85.217.32.182 (talk) 23:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

- She was born in the Ukrain but family moved to Canada when she was a child, 7 y. old.
She sais so herself in the interview http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23YjWhDxSCA&t=2m45s at around 2min 50sek.
So she is NOT an "Ukrainian porn actress" as some whant to portray her, saying that is factually incorrect, she did not start her porn career as a child in Ukraine.
--82.131.15.249 (talk) 21:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

She has Canadian citizenship and grew up in Canada so hence can be considered a Canadian pornstar. However, even her own website states she was born in The Ukraine and moved to Toronto at an early age. Can't find anything anywhere that suggests she was born in Quebec. http://www.nikkibenz.com/blog/bio/

Gogopurplemonkey78 (talk) 18:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Now there reads: Benz resides in Los Angeles, California, USA, but is originally from Toronto, Canada.

So she lives in California, but is Canadian, though actually originally from Ukraine... 82.141.119.130 (talk) 02:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Photo

You can put a photo and do not change it Alf5435334777 (talk) 20:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

There already is a photo in the article. And there is no discussion about it being changed. Could you clarify your point? Dismas|^(talk) 20:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

there are users who vandalize Alf5435334777 (talk) 20:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes but this article hasn't been for a while. What's your point? Dismas|^(talk) 20:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

We need to change the photo. her appearance has changed from that blonde look long ago. this is September 2016. the photo was like 5 years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.76.129.158 (talk) 04:17, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the Defamation lawsuit

Judge Denies Nikki Benz's Motions in Tony T Suit, Case to Proceed --SamWinchester000 (talk) 17:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Birthdate

Why is the birthdate (BLP violation removed) not included? This is information found on numerous sources.... 2604:3D09:927F:E900:34FB:BAEF:36B:88A5 (talk) 04:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia has higher standards for sourcing regarding personal information about living people; see WP:BLPPRIVACY. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Why was the date removed here in the talk page? What have I violated, come on man... 2604:3D09:927F:E900:C:DC1B:8E8E:1B80 (talk) 15:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

BLP policy linked above applies to all pages, including talk pages. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Birthdate (2)

Several sources list this as the date, and I will continue to post this as a discussion topic. 2604:3D09:927F:E900:FD2E:EC13:175C:EACE (talk) 18:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Naughty America ® on X: "@nikkibenz Happy Birthday, Nikki! 🎂 🥳 Cheers to you on your special day! 🥂" / X (twitter.com)

Response from the official Nikki Benz account was "Thank You" 2604:3D09:927F:E900:FD2E:EC13:175C:EACE (talk) 18:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

The "thank you" tweet is not a confirmation of anything, and the Naughty America tweet doesn't even state the date explicitly, let alone the year of birth. It's also a WP:USERGENERATED source, not reliable. Combining different sources (one for the year, another for the day) to arrive at a date of birth is also WP:SYNTH. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Removal of birthdate

I won't stop. Grow up 2604:3D09:927F:E900:C028:6865:A4E7:19EF (talk) 19:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

User Sangdeboeuf is not engaging in:

2.1 – Mutual respect

We expect all Wikimedians to show respect for others. In communicating with people, whether in online or offline Wikimedia environments, we will treat each other with mutual respect.

This includes but is not limited to:

Practice empathy. Listen and try to understand what Wikimedians of different backgrounds want to tell you. Be ready to challenge and adapt your own understanding, expectations and behaviour as a Wikimedian.

Assume good faith, and engage in constructive edits; your contributions should improve the quality of the project or work. Provide and receive feedback kindly and in good faith. Criticism should be delivered in a sensitive and constructive manner. All Wikimedians should assume unless evidence otherwise exists that others are here to collaboratively improve the projects, but this should not be used to justify statements with a harmful impact. 2604:3D09:927F:E900:C028:6865:A4E7:19EF (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

They are right in removing the date of birth though, they should only be added if they have either been widely reported in reliable sources or has been explicitly stated by the subject. Unfortunately your addition is not taking these points into account, and so are not improving the encyclopedia. Rather than trying to force you addition through repeated edits I suggest listening to the concerns of other editors. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:02, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

It is not being ADDED TO THE ARTICLE

Having it in the talk page is here to generate discussion. If I am not blocked I will continue to write , until I am stopped. I have no problem being obstinate in the face of ridiculous, authoritarian, behaviour.

2604:3D09:6A86:F300:7932:A573:B23A:D0B1 (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Additional sources stating DECEMBER 11, DECEMBER 11, DECEMBER 11, DECEMBER 11

https://babesdirectory.online/profile/nikki-benz

https://adultfilmindex.com/actor/214/nikki-benz

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1617488/bio/

https://www.bornglorious.com/person/?pi=233140 2604:3D09:6A86:F300:7932:A573:B23A:D0B1 (talk) 23:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

From official Nikki Benz facebook : 2604:3D09:6A86:F300:7932:A573:B23A:D0B1 (talk) 01:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

The Facebook post by Benz only says "It's my birthday this Sunday", with no indication of her age. As I explained previously, Combining different sources (one for the year, another for the day) to arrive at a date of birth is also WP:SYNTH. This is explained under WP:DOB: Original research must not be used to extrapolate the date of birth. The other links are to more self-published websites, not reliable. WP:IMDB in particular is considered generally unreliable. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Are you serious man?

She clearly states her birthday is December 11, your responses are absolutely baffling... 2604:3D09:927F:E900:ECE9:8136:2301:7A99 (talk) 04:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Is it not possible to state December 11, 1981/82.... 2604:3D09:927F:E900:ECE9:8136:2301:7A99 (talk) 04:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

The subject of this article states their birthday is December 11, but that's not enough? Ok, then... You can use all of your Wikipedia esoteric terminology, that doesn't make what's going on here correct or appropriate. 2604:3D09:927F:E900:ECE9:8136:2301:7A99 (talk) 04:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'm serious man. This would be WP:SYNTH giving potential stalkers a 50/50 chance at guessing the subject's actual date of birth. The only halfway acceptable source here is the Facebook post by the subject, which doesn't indicate their age at all. Benz is borderline notable anyway, which means we should probably just list the year (or range of years as appropriate). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

There are numerous confirmations from her verified Facebook that state DECEMBER 11 2604:3D09:927F:E900:ECE9:8136:2301:7A99 (talk) 05:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

2604:3D09:927F:E900:ECE9:8136:2301:7A99 (talk) 05:14, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

2604:3D09:927F:E900:ECE9:8136:2301:7A99 (talk) 05:14, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

None of these include the subject's age or year of birth. "Thank you for all of your birthday wishes!! <3" doesn't even indicate the day. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

You are just being willfully antagonistic.

She clearly says I was born on December 11 here : 2604:3D09:927F:E900:ECE9:8136:2301:7A99 (talk) 05:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Great. Fantastic. Where does the subject state her year of birth? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I never stated there was a source for the year, I was always talking about the DATE.

And that date kept being deleted from this talk page.

I think it can be reliably shown that the birthday is December 11.

This does not have to be added to the article, but should be left for reference on this talk page. 2604:3D09:927F:E900:ECE9:8136:2301:7A99 (talk) 05:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

What you are talking about is a birthday, not a birth date. Birth date includes the year of birth. Talk pages are a place to discuss ways to improve the article, not a general discussion forum or repository of poorly sourced biographical info. If a piece of information is worth referencing, then it can go in the article. If not, then it doesn't belong on Wikipedia anywhere. Once again, there are different standards for material relating to living people than for other topics. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

>giving potential stalkers a 50/50 chance at guessing the subject's actual date of birth

Why does this matter for adult actresses and not every single other notable person on the entire website? TheNeutroniumAlchemist (talk) 12:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

It matters because porn actresses and other sex workers are at increased risk of stalking and harassment. Wikipedia has an explicit policy of not exposing subjects to victimization, even unintentionally. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

BornGlorious mirrors Wikipedia content, it discloses this at the bottom of the page ("Text content from Wikipedia licensed under CC BY-SA"). This makes it unreliable, as you can't use Wikipedia or a site that mirrors it's content for referencing.

IMDB is user editable, so it's content is no more reliable any random person (this doesn't apply to everything on IMDB, but it does to the details in question).

BabesDitectory and AdultFilmsIndex don't look immediately unreliable, but they don't look like they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Biographies of living people (BLP) are meant to use high-quality sources, and these don't look like 'high quality' sources.
You should never use any social media posts that are not directly from the subject in a BLP article. The policy on this is quite clear, and not respecting BLP policies does reault in editors being blocked.

In many cases when it comes to personal information such as birthdates, statements from the subject are the easiest sources. If the have personally made certain information public it removes any concerns about keeping it private.
It both common and acceptable to have date without the year, so I don't see why "11 December" couldn't be added to the article using this Facebook link as a reference. But there is already a reference from the Independent stating she was 36 in 2017/2018, which would make her birth year either 1981/1982.
What can't be done is combine these details, creating a birthdate from parts of different sources is a bad idea. Calculating backwards from a year to get an exact full birthdate isn't always clear or easy.
In my personal opinion I would remove the year range, and use the date/month without a year instead. There's two reason for that, one the date range is calculated from her being 36 when the suit was filled but doesn't state what year that was and the year range is not widely reported (outside of the Independent article), and two the date/month is something the subject has confirmed themselves and birth year can be something individuals don't always want to exposed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

TLDR the first four sources presented are crap, and using social media posts in a BLP that are not directly from the subject is a quick way to find yourself blocked. However the subject has stated their birth day/month, and I suggest that is used instead of the birth year range currently used. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

As an aside - 2604:3D09:927F:E900:... I strongly suggest you familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's policies on living people (WP:BLP) and reliable sources (WP:RS). If you're unsure if something is reliable you can ask questions at the reliable sources noticeboard (WP:RSN). Just because there's a website online that has stuff doesn't mean its automatically usable on Wikipedia. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I reverted the addition of the day and month per WP:DOB: Original research must not be used to extrapolate the date of birth. Inclusion of the birth day/month as well as the year using different sources amounts to WP:SYNTH.

I disagree with listing the birthday by itself; this is trivial information more suited to a fan magazine than an encyclopedia. Whether an individual wants their birth year to be known is immaterial; the year alone is too general to present identity theft concerns or concerns about harassment, etc. It is, however, useful information for the reader to know a subject's approximate age. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm ok with that, but please don't mass revert over other changes - it's disruptive. You could have just removed the value from |birth_date= without the need to mass revert. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:19, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Official social media channels confirm day of birth

Official verified Facebook and Instagram pages confirm DECEMBER 11 day of birth, but @Sangdeboeuf continues to fail to engage in good faith, and reverts, for seemingly no reason other than "it can't be authenticated" and this "is trivial". Why is this happening? Can other experienced editors like @LuniZuni @Milowent, who I know from past experience to be fair, please contribute? Thank you. ~2025-39885-95 (talk) 16:45, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fan club. People's birthdays are not generally encyclopedic information unless the full date of birth is known. There are also privacy concerns with publicizing the year and day of birth unless the subject themselves has disclosed the exact date. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:51, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

The subject did disclose the exact date.... ~2025-39885-95 (talk) 16:53, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:57, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Official social media channels confirm December 11, birthdate. She clearly is not hiding the fact that she was born on that day, and posted about it every year. If Wikipedia is indeed an encyclopedia, I fail to understand what the great uproar is with having this info provided, when the subject has very clearly shared that information with the public. How is Wikipedia "protecting" her privacy, when she herself has posted the day? This is nonsense argument. ~2025-39885-95 (talk) 17:05, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

A birthday minus the year is not an exact date of birth. See WP:BLPPRIVACY for why we don't indiscriminately include people's birthdays. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:11, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

But Nikki Benz herself has shared this this information! What is going on here?!! ~2025-39885-95 (talk) 17:14, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Frankly, @Sangdeboeuf I find this this authoritarian "laying down the law" demeanor disturbing. Everyone who does a google search will find out her birthday is December 11, but as long as Wikipedia "protects her privacy" that's all that matters. Thank goodness that Wikipedia won't include it, I wouldn't want to stumble upon her birthday without "her consent".

This is an absolute joke, as is your line of argument. ~2025-39885-95 (talk) 17:18, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia has higher standards for sourcing than other websites, let alone Google searches. Unless Benz has shared her full date of birth including the year, then putting all that info on Wikipedia only helps potential stalkers. It's certainly not essential to an encyclopedia. The fact that you are ridiculing the idea of consent is even more reason to resist the inclusion of personal identifying info about the subject. Wikipedia has a strong presumption in favor of privacy for living persons. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Mr Omnipotent. Yes, as long as wikipedia doesn't include the date I guess stalkers won't harass, even though this info is available all over.

Info |It may be usable if there is no reason to doubt it.| applies to the social media channels, but you have obstinately refused to accept it as fact. How unfortunate. ~2025-39885-95 (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Since the info is apparently available all over, there's no reason to include it here, is there? Once again, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, meaning a summary of accepted knowledge, not a compendium of every dubious factoid and AI hallucination found on the wider internet.

May be usable does not equate to "must be included". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

There is nothing dubious or AI about the December 11 birthdate that she, Nikki Benz, has confirmed. But if it makes you sleep well at night, that you are "protecting her privacy" so be it. Throwing around all the terminology and rules of this so called encyclopedia does make what's happened here just. You can feel righteous all you want. ~2025-39885-95 (talk) 17:41, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Feel free to seek justice at WP:ANI if you like. This page is for building consensus based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, especially the biographies of living persons policy. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:45, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

I just find it particularly nonsensical that readily available information is excluded (especially info that is confirmed by the subject) for the sake of arguments that do not apply here (privacy, stalkers). She posted numerous photos over the years stating December 11 is the birth date, so wikipedia as a supposedly trustworthy site should be able to reiterate that. Instead a lot of jargon, terminology, is thrown around by authoritarian editors, trying to intimidate. I know that Nikki Benz' birthday is December 11, because she told us so. But wikipedia does not want to take her word, because of "privacy" and "protection". ~2025-39885-95 (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Once again, if you feel you are being intimidated, WP:ANI is the place to go. Your other complaints have been answered. Whether you agree with those answers or not is nobody else's problem. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:09, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

I will, and no my complaints have not been answered at all. ~2025-39885-95 (talk) 18:10, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

• Being summoned by this IP editor, I have not read all this stuff, but i just checked 15 years of the subjects social media posts, where she confirms again and again her birthday is December 11. (Yes i saw some nudity in doing this important editor's work.) That the year is 1981 or 1982 is confirmed by the secondary source currently cited in the article. A birthday is normal biographical information in BLPs. I'm not interested in an editing war, my opinion is right no matter what you do from here. After engaging in absurd debates of when Regis Philbin died and Scott Baio's birthyear i can't do it again.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:46, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

  Combining different sources to arrive at a full date of birth is WP:SYNTH and is specifically prohibited by WP:DOB. (I know some users consider that a routine calculation, but to me that is going beyond the intent of the policy.) —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:57, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

• I found a Ukrainian news source which cites (BLP violation removed) as her birthday, it is published by Ukrainian Independent Information Agency. So the synth objection is now moot.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:02, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks. ~2025-39885-95 (talk) 21:10, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

  And I found her birth name on the same source. Ahri Boy (talk) 08:07, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

• There is currently no discernable BPL privacy policy problem here. If a person repeatedly says on a verified social media account that their birthday is July 18 and a reliable source says that the person was born in 1992, then it is OK to state that they were born on July 18. 1992. This is not synthesis and not a violation of privacy or BLP policy. Cullen328 (talk) 00:21, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

  WP:SYNTH means to combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Combining the year from one source with the day/month from a different source to arrive at the full DOB sounds like a perfect example of synthesis.

  There are obvious privacy concerns here. For one thing, a person's full DOB can be used to steal their identity, whereas their birthday alone cannot. Furthermore, I'm not sure a single news article counts as widely published by reliable sources for WP:BLPPRIVACY purposes. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:38, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

  Seven years ago, both UNIAN and Znai.ua articles confirm that (BLP violation removed) is her real birth date and Alla Monchak is her real name. Ahri Boy (talk) 08:45, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

  Synthesis is a form of original research. The No original research policy says that routine calculations are not original research. Taking the mathematical data point of the day and month of birth and the separate data point of the year of birth, and from that calculating the exact date of birth is a routine calculation so obvious and banal that it barely rises to the level of actual calculation. Cullen328 (talk) 08:54, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

  I do not think there is anything routine about using data points from different sources, especially when the privacy of living persons is involved. A truly routine calculation would be using a person's DOB to determine their current age, such as by plugging the numbers into {{birth date and age}}. But there has to be a single source for that info, otherwise it's improper synthesis. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:04, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

  Here is the precise policy language: Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the results of the calculations are correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. No one challenges the correctness of the date of birth or that the simple calculation is meaningful in this context. The use of the plural "sources" confirms that use of two (or more) sources is acceptable. Cullen328 (talk) 00:15, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

  I think you're reading too much into minor grammatical details. The policy refers to sources just as it refers to calculations. It's a generalized way of speaking, not an endorsement of improper synthesis.

  Meaningful in this context is obviously different from meaningful reflection of the sources. I interpret the latter to mean not going beyond the intended meaning of the sources or using them out of context (such as by combining data from different sources that did not intend for them to be combined). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:43, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

  Sangdeboeuf, please provide a link to a centralized discussion, broader than the talk page of a single biography of a living person, that reached consensus that a reliable source verifying a year of birth and a reliable source verifying a birthday cannot be used to verify inclusion of a date of birth. What is your reliable source for claiming that Benz "did not intend" for people to take those two pieces of information and conclude that she was born on a specific date? Cullen328 (talk) 18:23, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

  I don't need a reliable source to argue for omitting material from an article, nor for what should be a common-sense interpretation of Original research, Biographies of living persons, and What Wikipedia is not policies. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:38, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

---

It appears that user @Sangdeboeuf has gotten his way, and insists on this illogical privacy argument and "stalkers". Can we at the very least add the December 11 back, she states it repeatedly herself on social media. This is such an absolutely ridiculous thing to be discussing. I am pinging @Cullen328 @Milowent Thank you. ~2025-39885-95 (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Another source, I cannot edit the article because it is locked.

https://www.iafd.com/person.rme/id=7c694264-877a-44ca-b521-0a6af5d2b8b6 ~2025-39885-95 (talk) 17:17, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

That website is based on user submitted content so it is not a reliable source for use as a reference on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 18:26, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

It would be best to wait and see. UNIAN article may be regurgitated from Daily Mail. Ahri Boy (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

What about her REPEATED social media posts, from verified accounts? ~2025-39885-95 (talk) 19:14, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

The subject's social media does not include her full date of birth. Others have already explained at WP:ANI that a birthday without an exact date from a reliable source is unencyclopedic trivia. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:31, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't like your behaviour and that is why I started a topic on WP:ANI.

This person has confirmed her day of birth repeatedly, and other confirmed sources had been put in place that showed also 1981.

Let's be clear Nikki Benz was born on December 11, and likely 1981. But you are stonewalling this info for reasons that I can't make make logical peace with. So be it man, congratulate yourself on protecting "privacy" and from "stalkers".

PS: this is not a personal attack, I don't even know you. This is a commentary on your actions as an editor which I find sub par. Thanks. ~2025-39885-95 (talk) 20:41, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

So to recap here:

1. Full name fails the "widely published" standard under WP:BLPPRIVACY
2. Year of birth fails the "widely published" standard under WP:BLPPRIVACY
3. Day and month of birth meet the alternate standard there (willful disclosure) but are not of encyclopedic value on their own.

Is there any part of this that anyone disputes? Personally, I'm not really sold either way on the third point in the abstract, but I think Sangdeboeuf has made a good showing that it's been the community's consensus in the past, and I don't see any reason why this article should be an exception to that consensus. If someone disagrees with the global consensus they'll need to start a global discussion (WT:MOSBIO, I'd think?). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 20:43, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Why is Day and month of birth not considered "encyclopedic value"? Encyclopedias provide information on topics, and if the subject has made this info known (and clearly wants it to be known), why shouldn't wikipedia include it? What is trivial about knowing her day of birth?

Frankly it's hard to take wikipedia seriously many times, when knowable facts like this are excluded under the arguments of "protection". ~2025-39885-95 (talk) 20:47, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Again, I'm not that invested in point 3 personally, but it appears to be global consensus, so this talkpage is bound to enforce it unless someone can cite some exceptional reason that this article is different from all other articles. As to why this became global consensus, that would lie in WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE: There's lots of information about people that is entirely verifiable, but that we omit because it's not useful enough to our readers. Other examples includes people's astrological sign, their blood type, their pets' names, and what job they had in high school. (In each of these examples, that thing could become worth mentioning if it gets special attention somewhere. But by default it isn't.) If you want a project that mostly just cares about what's verifiable, without curating in the way Wikipedia does, see our sister project Wikidata. Their entry on Ms. Benz, FWIW, includes a full date of birth. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 20:54, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Not sure what sources have been presented, but these sources together more than clear the bar for verified social media account of an article subject saying about themselves something along the lines of "today is my 50th birthday" may fall under self-published sources for purposes of reporting a full date of birth (WP:DOB). Hameltion (talk | contribs) 15:43, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the first one resolves the DOB issue. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 15:46, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

There we go, she says she turned 40 on December 11 2021, Meaning she was born in 1981. Can this be added to the article? Or are we still going with "privacy", "protection" and "Stalkers", @Sangdeboeuf? ~2025-39885-95 (talk) 18:30, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

She didn't say that exactly, but I agree it's a reasonable interpretation. Why are "privacy", "protection" and "Stalkers" in quotation marks? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:09, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

• Coming back here, I do not understand User:Tamzin's claim in their edit comment removing the birthdate, calling unian.ua as an "obscure tabloidy write-up[] in the press of a country she hasn't lived in in decades, at least one of which appears regurgitated from the Daily Mail" Ukrainian Independent Information Agency (unian.ua) is a leading news source in Ukraine. The sentence in their article states (as translated) "Alla was born on December 11, 1981 in Mariupol into a family of engineers" and that fact is NOT taken from the Daily Mail article which unian credits (as appropriate) only for first breaking the story of Benz filing a lawsuit. The Daily Mail article referenced has nothing about Benz' birthdate, birth location, or parents' occupation. Unian.ua is the source reporting that. It is common for the birth country of a celebrity to report on what a person is doing in their current celebrity life in the United States or elsewhere. If someone wants to asserts that unian.ua is not a reliable Ukrainian news outlet, or reliable news outlet generally for facts of this type, I want to hear about it.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:39, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not disputing Unian's reliability. I'm saying that that is not "widely published". The main evidence that her full name isn't widely published is that it isn't. A supporting point is that the only reliable sources (AFAICT) that have ever published her name are from a country she has not lived in in decades, which in my view diminishes whatever standing they might have to count toward "widely published". The reason we look to what's "widely published" is because it shows what journalists in a given field see as appropriate to print, and in the field of North American journalism about North American pornographic performers, that appears to not include Nikki Benz' full name. Regardless, if you're unconvinced by that and think "widely published" should include even media outlets far removed from the normal cultural and ethical considerations of publishing a private name, it doesn't really change anything, because again, this name is not widely published even if you do count Unian. If you wish to change the "widely published" standard, WT:BLP would be the place to go, but policy is quite clear that we don't get to include a full name just because one or a few sources say it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 20:32, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

• I was summoned to fix the birthdate issue, that's all. I think the Unian.ua source can be used to support her birthdate and haven't thought about any birth name dispute.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:12, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

  The 40th birthday post moots^AmEng the "widely published" question on birthdate, since it satisfies the alternate prong of the rule. I'd say we can just cite that. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 21:20, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

  That works for me. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:46, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

  So is it going to be added to the article then? Or are we still having this Monty Python-esque discussion? ~2025-41585-36 (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

  You may find that volunteers are less enthused to make edits when being bombarded with random hostility. Maybe there's a good life lesson there! I'm sure someone will make the edit sooner or later though. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:29, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

  Unless one or more reputable sources cover about her past, we should keep the lead section untouched. Ahri Boy (talk) 14:48, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

  Why can't you? That's my point, there is so much absurdity going on here.

  Sources have been provided, she HERSELF on SOCIAL MEDIA has confirmed, and yet? Here we are in a Monty Python argument clinic. What is so difficult about accepting that it is known she was born on that date? So unreal, how can one really respect wikipedia fully when things like this happen. ~2025-39885-95 (talk) 16:30, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

  Every single one of us is a volunteer, including you. Someone will make it if and when they're interested. I suggest you either register and therefore have access to do it, or move on to another subject. Continuing to argue here isn't going to help, 95. Star Mississippi 16:58, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

  I have an account, and the article is still locked. How do I get around it? Thanks ~2025-41736-26 (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

  Use {{Edit request}}. Ahri Boy (talk) 22:59, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

References

Edit request 19 December 2025

• born December 11, 1981 DelphicSibyl31 (talk) 23:27, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

 Not done WP:RSPINSTAGRAM. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:47, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

The Instagram post seems like a valid source per WP:BLPSELFPUB, unless there is doubt as to its authenticity. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:11, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Even if it's archived, it's still not reliable as such. Any social media post is deemed to be inauthentic unless the author speaks out to reputable sources. Ahri Boy (talk) 08:32, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I missed this, but it makes no sense—Benz' account is verified, and Instagram, unlike Twitter, does actually still vet verifications—so I'll stand by actioning this request. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:49, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

It's not clear why you say that. You pointed to WP:RSPINSTAGRAM, which says, As a social networking service, Instagram is covered by the following policies and guidelines: WP:SOCIALMEDIA, WP:RSSELF, WP:SPS and WP:UGC. The first of those, WP:SOCIALMEDIA, says (emphasis in original):

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they are established experts in the field, so long as ...

and the following five conditions are satisfied. NebY (talk) 18:58, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

• Note: I removed a reply which amounted to WP:CANVASSING. Please do not change the status of the {{edit request}} template without a new consensus to include the material. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:22, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
•  Actioned, if only to ensure that if this temp account makes any further disruptive comments, there isn't anything standing in the way of blocking them. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:48, 20 December 2025 (UTC)