egafd.com

Ah. yes: just plain old Michelle.

Damn!
I've just noticed it...try to type in BGAFD search box: removed by request.
That's incredible, they're spoiling all the hard work!

the 'removed by request' epidemic at bgafd really hampers model identification.

i don't suppose anyone happened to save the id photos of the removed models before removal?

also i'm assuming there are some models on egafd 'removed by request' although i've never seen it stated - is there a reason for this?

also question for admin - what would be done if say Angel Long requested removal from the database?

Author: Rob4
Date: 01-27-09 09:39

the 'removed by request' epidemic at bgafd really hampers model identification.

i don't suppose anyone happened to save the id photos of the removed models before removal?

also i'm assuming there are some models on egafd 'removed by request' although i've never seen it stated - is there a reason for this?

also question for admin - what would be done if say Angel Long requested removal from the database?

=============================================
That would be revealing things that EGAFD may not want known.
If their internal policy would become public knowledge, there would be a run for the gates of fatabase records. Just about everyone with a sordid past to hide would be making the same demands.
I think it depends on the circumstances, the nature and justification of the request, whether it would hurtful to someone, whether the "pressures" (personal and legal) are worth withstanding...
I still say the movie cast list should show something rather than nothing at all. For example: Jane Doe #1, Jane Doe #126 for instance, and indicate that the porn name used was removed at performer's request. Photo of hers would be removed as well, and if EGAFD really had the balls, it would re-direct outside info (like it puts up web site info) via web link(s) to some real info about her to Wikipedia, IMDB or such... But that would be too daring and ballsy, right?

We are not the only ones complaining about it.
I'm not french and can't get it all, but this guy wrote an interesting article about wikipedia (Wikip?dia,la farce encyclop?dique), i paste only the part about porno:


Le cas particulier de la porno

On reproche souvent ? Wikip?dia d'?tre parfois un portail porno ! Faut pas pousser non plus ! Wikip?dia n'est pas un portail du sexe, c'est un portail de tout ce qu'on veut ! Mais parlons n?anmoins de sexe. La porno est un fait de soci?t?, le cin?ma porno, fruit du pr?c?dent est un genre. Dans un cas comme dans l'autre une encyclop?die n'a pas ? l'?carter de son champ d'investigations.

Aussi quand un certain nombre de p?res et de m?res la pudeur commenc?rent ? s'insurger contre ce genre d'articles, la ligne de Wikip?dia en la mati?re fut ?nonc?e de fa?on claire : la porno a sa place sur Wikip?dia.

Jusqu'ici tout va bien, mais grosse d?ception des censeurs qui revinrent ? la charge plusieurs mois plus tard en mettant en ?vidence l'une des vraies failles du syst?me :

En effet, qu'est ce qui emp?che un producteur de l'industrie porno, de pondre du jour au lendemain, un article sur une actrice X, encore inconnue le mois pr?c?dent, mais qui tient la vedette dans un DVD qui vient de sortir ? Bien s?r l'article va faire appara?tre une biographie qui sera peut-?tre imaginaire, et aussi et surtout un lien vers le site officiel de la demoiselle qui proposera la vente du DVD...

Voil? un bon exemple de publicit? clandestine !

Premier d?bat : une encyclop?die doit-elle accepter toutes les entr?es ou doit-elle ne laisser entrer que ce qui se conforme ? de "rigoureux" crit?res d'admissibilit? ? C'est tout un d?bat ! Wikip?dia a tranch? (de fa?on parfois bien th?orique), pour le second choix. Admettons.

Nos coinc?s de la braguette sont donc retourn?s au combat, (puisque on garde le porno, on va en r?glementer l'entr?e !) avec comme but de d?finir des crit?res rigoureux d'admissibilit? pour tous les articles sur le cin?ma X.

Alors quels crit?res ?

1) les sources doivent ?tre ext?rieures ? l'industrie pornographique ! Ah, ce probl?me de la source ! (voir plus haut)

2) Un des crit?res c'est d'avoir remport? un prix (un hot d'or ou un truc dans le genre) ! Ces messieurs dames au lieu de l?gif?rer dans le vide auraient ?t? bien inspir? de demander aux sp?cialistes comment se pr?pare une c?r?monie des hots d'or (et oui, tout est bidonn? par les ?diteurs). On arrive donc ? ce paradoxe, avoir une m?daille de complaisance au cours d'une remise des prix organis?e par un journal confidentiel est un crit?re d'admissibilit?. Par contre faire 10 ans de carri?re remarqu?e mais se foutre des distinctions comme de sa premi?re culotte, vaut ?limination. Et c'est exactement ce qui se passe.
Si aujourd'hui un historien du X voulait faire une ?tude sur l'?ge d'or de la porno en France, Wikip?dia ne l'aiderait pas puisque les articles sur Chantal Virapin, Ellen Earl, Emmanuelle Par?ze, Joy Karin's, Marie-Claude Viollet, Olinka Hardiman, (et j'en oublie) ont ?t? effac?s. Elodie Ch?rie, Karine Gambier et Barbara Moose ont r?ussit ? passer entre les mailles du filet et il a fallu un vote serr? pour que Marilyn Jess (humm !) conserve son article !

Les am?ricaines ne sont pas mieux loties, suite ? ce d?bat surr?aliste, o? le niveau d'incomp?tence, d'intol?rance et de mauvaise foi a ?t? abyssal, c'est par charrettes enti?res (plusieurs centaines) que les articles sur les actrices X (dont Adara Michaels, Blake Mitchell, Cara Lott, Danielle Rodgers, Kristara Barrington, Victoria Paris, et m?me la pionni?re Gloria L?onard) ont ?t? jet?s ? la poubelle, Christy Canyon n'?chappant ? la suppression que suite ? un vote ! Et attendez ce n'est pas fini, certains wikip?distes disent aujourd'hui que les crit?res actuels ne sont pas assez dur... qu'il faut aller plus loin...

Le Poirier anal : Terminons ce paragraphe par un sourire (ironique) : La petite histoire de Wikip?dia retiendra aussi qu'un jour une trentaine de personnes se sont livr?es ? des joutes passionn?es parsem?es d'arguments p?remptoires et de convictions h?tives afin de d?battre s'il convenait de conserver dans l'encyclop?die un article sur le Poirier anal... (ce n'est pas un film, c'est une position) qui a ?t? finalement supprim? ! Au cours de ce d?bat un ignare s'est distingu? en affirmant que "Il faut soigner sa libido ailleurs que sur Wikip?dia". Quelqu'un a tout de m?me d? lui expliquer que la libido n'?tait pas une maladie.(5)

L'exobiophilie : Ce terme (fantasme de l'amour avec un(e) extraterrestre), qui rassemble 20.600 occurrences dans Google France heurte la pudeur d'un de nos coinc?s wikip?diens. Fin 2007, ils r?clament la suppression de l'article. Huit personnes (pas plus) ne connaissant absolument pas le sujet voteront sa suppression. (et l'un d'entre eux motivera son vote d'un ton p?remptoire en affirmant (je vous le donne en mille)... que ce n'est pas encyclop?dique !(6)

here's the link:
http://pagesperso-orange.fr/lemomo2/wikipedia.htm

There is a certain amount of "self-censoring" in these databases other than a whole filmography being "erased" and reference to some performers who have succeeded in one way or another to have information about their appearing in hc movies removed.
(1) Escorting EGAFD won't let you mention such activity on the part of a performer. I doubt they would even be prepared to provide a web link, even if in some part of the web the performer advertises such activity. I have only found (by accident) only one web link in IAFD to an actress' weblink, where she blatantly advertises her "escort" services" (she makes references to "donations" rather than price list). We all know that many many hc performers are into escorting and that a certain number either openly advertise their "services" while a small number are a little sly about it or deny it even there is strong evidence to support they are escorting. It is a fact that they demand a higher price for their services (check out the porn stars who have been at the Bunny Ranch and the prices they demand) if they are well known and have a certain "celebrity" status. So the double standard for them and the mentioned databases is: it's OK to mention movie titles in which they screw, but it's a no-no to mention they openly offer "escort" services, because that's behind closed doors. One is considered a legitimate filmmaking activity, while the other is downright prostitution I suppose.
(2) Real names. As far as I know EGAFD only provides porn names. IAFD occasionally provides their real names in the AKA section without directly telling you which is the real name or which are the porn names. I believe IAFD official policy is that they will also run their real names if it is "publicly" known. How that determination is made I have no clue.
I was working on the filmo of Lady Rox some time back and on her web site, she reprinted a newspaper article in which she blacked out her real name which was mentioned in the article. I suppose if you went through the archives of that paper, you would eventually find the name, but obviously she does not want to overtly reveal it. EBI seems to only list porn names.
(3) Bestiality, yet again a touchy subject for EGAFD. Although EGAFD will list movie titles in which they performed some scenes with barnyard animals, EGAFD prefers not to discuss or mention much of the content of the movie or run movie links for that title. As in the case of the cult favorite Bodil, EGAFD will list only the titles for "historical reference", but will say nothing else about the contents. You will have to infer much from the tiles if it's revealing enough (gee I wonder what "Animal Bizarre" may be about...!).
IAFD is more or less in the same boat, as it may list movie titles where the actress may have performed with animals (see the filmo of Chesie Moore), but you will have to guess from the titles as to their content.
EBI does or at least used to mention that a certain performer did beasty scenes, but I do not recall listing actual titles or providing any direct web links for any additional info.

Author: Len801
Date: 01-28-09 00:25

EBI does or at least used to mention that a certain performer did beasty scenes, but I do not recall listing actual titles or providing any direct web links for any additional info.

--------------------------------

EBI currently has the mention of bestiality on the pages of two performers, although it's debatable whether the act of one of them in a certain film may be considered bestiality. The scene concerned was cut out in the US release anyway.

Man, I love the Aesopian language!

@Rob4

why did you quote Angel Long?

Good thing that other sources existed!
Anyone knows if the following books are tranlated into other languages?

[img]http://i39.tinypic.com/furwc9.jpg[/img]

Is Marie Christine Chireix, the second from left?

[img]http://i39.tinypic.com/otno7l.jpg[/img]

Presumably as an example of how much info could be lost if
a realy prolific actress requested removal. Roxanne Hall or
Sarah Young would have done as well.