Talk:Jake Flores

Yeah this reads like he wrote it himself — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odoacer Rex (talk • contribs) 14:58, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Jake Flores keeps editing his own page.

Several times over the past several months, users have added reliable sources regarding the major drama between him and comedian Nick Mullen.

Even when there is an attempt to present both sides of the issue in an objective manner, it seems a few dedicated accounts keep reverting the changes.

Can we please have a rational discussion surrounding this? It's inappropriate to allow an individual to edit their own page, or to continue to allow vandalism by their fans. There should be a Wikipedia investigation. Rsjintel (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

What's there to discuss? If he continues to make poor edits to the page, then his account will eventually be blocked. Editing your own article, while discouraged, is technically allowed. If the edits are good, then there's no problem. If they're not, revert, and if it continues (which, at this point, if he makes another edit it's probably grounds to report), report it. WPscatter ^t/_c 22:53, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

There is no evidence that this performer has edited his on page and as stated above, shows that even if they did it was allowed. This page has been subjected to several incidents of trolling from right wingers and deserves to stay up FeralFlores (talk) 14:35, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Jake Flores Adult Film Career

Description given for why additions were revoked are confusing, the quotes and actions directly come from Jake’s account and several sources on the page are similar in the type of source. JeremiahSalvacion2 (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Jake Flores directly states on his Twitter that he was proud to be an adult film actor, he effectively repelled any attempt to humiliate or demean is performance by showing strength and accepting his powerful body of work JeremiahSalvacion2 (talk) 20:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Reviewing vandalism guidelines, changed source to be more direct, citing Flores' words directly showing his pride and reasonable desire to demonstrate his support for sex-work and adult film. JeremiahSalvacion2 (talk) 21:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

We use secondary sources. If this was noteworthy it would be covered by a broad array of reliable secondary sources, not the Daily Dot and Twitter. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

There are several sources on this page that are not secondary sources. Three of the podcasts listed are primary source, and multiple sources are primary source copies of Jake's writer pages or other direct sources from the person. This is an abuse of the term vandalism as it implies a form of destruction of their character. JeremiahSalvacion2 (talk) 21:23, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Seeing how there are multiple samples and sources that are also primary source, please verify how additions of their adult film career is considered vandalism? Would a review of his adult films be considered secondary sources then? Would the actual films need to be attached to this page? JeremiahSalvacion2 (talk) 21:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Do any of them specifically mention him, and are the sources reliable? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that you believe Daily Dot is unreliable, however this source is in no way different than the other items cited and is technically more reliable than one of the other sources. The other citations include articles from Reason, Splinter, Interrobang, and Cracked. All of these sources are no different than Daily Dot which is another digital media newsfrot, and is generally more central compared to tabloid news from Splinter, or right-wing blog posts from Cracked.com. The Daily Dot article is accurate because it directly cites Flores' Twitter and among the community of adult performers, his actions and comments to the criticism were examples of how to accept sex-positivity in the online front for online performers. JeremiahSalvacion2 (talk) 21:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

edit: *news front. Additionally if the issue is the graphic detail of what he did in the adult films, I would concede that the detail can sound like vandalism, but total omission of his contribution is a misuse of the term. JeremiahSalvacion2 (talk) 21:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I realize I did not include the source that directly mentions him, here they are :

https://www.dailydot.com/irl/pod-damn-america-bdsm-porn-reddit/

The tweets and direct words from Flores himself: https://twitter.com/feraljokes/status/1291006323283369985?s=20 JeremiahSalvacion2 (talk) 21:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

See WP:DAILYDOT, and specifically Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article. WP:BLPGOSSIP also covers some of why this isn't fit for including. Just a note, I've requested additional input at WP:BLPN. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you and yes, please follow up with additional input. I understand the argument of due weigh however the citation from Daily Dot fits the narrative of due weight as it is a neutral stance that simply states another vocation that Flores is involved in and is similar in weight to the other items posted, such as the mentions of his podcast work, which are equally weighted. Regarding the post being related to gossip, that is why I focused on the specifics of what Flores identified and stated, rather than what his critics said, which was pure gossip. Only discussing their contribution and actions within the adult film community rather than the criticism of it. JeremiahSalvacion2 (talk) 22:45, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Here from WP:BLPN, I agree that shouldn't be in there. WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE or WP:PUBLICFIGURE (not sure if he's a public figure, but either guidance indicates this shouldn't be in the article) and WP:AVOIDVICTIM need to be considered too. Tristario (talk) 00:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Please specify how the article above dictates that this info should not be on here. The addition stating that they have performed in adult film is objective and I did not specify anything that went against their character, only noting their involvement in the art. JeremiahSalvacion2 (talk) 00:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Have you read what I linked? WP:NPF In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources. WP:PUBLICFIGURE If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. WP:AVOIDVICTIM Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.. And on top of that there's the general guidance of WP:BLP Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. and Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy

These videos were (allegedly) leaked. We should be very careful about including this. WP:BLP, which you should read, is a policy - we need to be very careful about how we write about living people, especially when it comes to things like this. This simply shouldn't be in the article without strong sourcing, and even then we need to consider the above factors Tristario (talk) 00:22, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I understand and read the information yes, my citation was the person's direct identification of themselves and their performance. The leak is in consideration of the fact that a community of bullies located the information and took advantage of it. Otherwise, Flores made no efforts to hide their performance in the BDSM community and has been an active and adamant performer, especially in the niche he was involved in. Additionally, leak implies that their pornographic acts were not for public use or viewing, however the videos and acts that Jake Flores did and proudly enacted, are still available today, however I did not add those links because those are certainly against guidelines and I believe that linking to the pornography directly was out of tone. JeremiahSalvacion2 (talk) 00:38, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Updating new and related information

I have made recent edits as an insider in the left wing Brooklyn comedy scene however user Cyberwolf has reverted the edits, claiming advertising but other edits were not given explanation FeralFlores (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS. With very few exceptions, everything in an article must come from reliable, independent sources. Insider knowledge is not acceptable. Your edits contained content that reads like personal opinion ("...showing the virtues of his political views..."), multiple points that were not supported by any sources, and in the case of your claim that he was detained by ICE for 48 hours, content that is clearly contradicted by the sources. Squeakachu (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for citing those, in this case why do my other citations and information on the page have the ability to stay up? Most of the other items in that list showing old information came from my own podcasts. It just feels weird that new information cited from other podcasts of mine aren’t allowed to stay up but the old ones are ok. Is there an admin I can talk to? FeralFlores (talk) 01:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Other users harassing and vandalizing page

There is an epidemic of other users that keep reverting information on this page without explicit direction or explanation of why. They claim some items are vandalism, or advertisements and yet they have no clear rationale. Several sections allowed to stay up on page are equally cited by twitter or podcast and yet new citations from both are considered not reliable. Unreasonable users and right wing toxicity FeralFlores2 (talk) 14:32, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Right wing toxicity? I dont care who you are please dont call our editors unreasonable. I honestly think politics are stupid and cause un need tension in the us •Cyberwolf• 14:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC)