Talk:Sibel Kekilli

Heilbronn / Western Germany ?

I think the first sentence is confusing for Heilbronn IS in western germany (south-western) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.19.6.211 (talk) 19:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The sentence is indicating that, at the time Kekilli lived there, Heilbronn was part of the country West Germany, not that is is or was in the west of Germany. —chaos5023 (talk) 20:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

A country calld West Germany never existed. It was and is the Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Federal REpublic of Germany) which was founded in 1949 and still exists (it gained some additional territory in 1990)134.3.76.108 (talk) 10:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected

I will semi-protect the page for a few days due to recent vandalisms. Kudret abi 05:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 04:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

List of porn films removed

The list of porn films previously in the article violated WP:BLP because it was unsourced. It also violated WP:UNDUE because Sibel Kekilli is now overwhelmingly known as a reputed mainstream actress and not fro her porn work; per the policy, "an article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." I've removed the list.  Sandstein  11:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

There was no need to delete the list. A reader has the right to know about the movies Sibel worked in, be it mainstream or pornographic movies. Editors like you(Sandstein) have tried to make the page of Sibel Kekilli look deceiving in terms of real information to which everyone is entitled. The list of pornographic movies by Sibel Kekilli carries proportionate weight in terms of the value of the information to many potential readers of her bio in wikipedia and hence I propose reinstating it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.255.15 (talk) 23:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you're proposing that, then I will register that I oppose it as WP:UNDUE. It is not about anybody's supposed "rights" to information which the state of an article on Wikipedia cannot possibly affect their access to. I am entirely familiar with the sort of motivations that we often encounter in people determined to plaster an article like this with the subject's "omg porn" background, and I will not be humoring these. —chaos5023 (talk) 00:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I do agree with unsigned, the fact that an actress that now is a mainstream European actress did not one but several porn movies, I think is very relevant and interesting. I honestly believe that all the public information of a a public individual should be provided. For instance now that US porn actress Sacha Gray is making more and more mainstream movies/tv series, should we also forget her porn past? I was curious about Sibel Kekilli not because of her mainstream career but becasue of her porn past (as I bet many people are, at least in the US where she is not well known right now [2011]). Her porn past is not in doubt, and can be cited very easily to any of the adult databases, so why try to hide it or censor that information. it is not about shock or anything, it is about irrefutable facts. If information about "private" sex tapes is available for mainstream actresses like Pamela Anderson or pseudo-celebrities such as Paris Hilton and Kim Kardasian, in this case Sibel Kekilli got paid ( I assume since she worked with professional porn actors) to take part in adult movies, so it is not even a privacy issue but pure censorship, so I second reinstating back that information (User talk:Dantt777)11:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The "irrefutable fact" of her having had a career in pornography is already noted, and more than suffices to address the topic. To include the itemized filmography is to assign undue weight to it, as each entry would necessarily be allocated as much space as Gegen die Wand, and her notability is overwhelmingly derived from her mainstream career. —chaos5023 (talk) 19:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is silly. The article clearly states that she appeared in porn. What more is there to say that's relevant to a biography? The idea that anyone is more likely to know about her from her porn career than her acting career is laughable.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The Sasha Grey comparison is a very poor one; Sasha Grey has essentially been cast in one serious non-pornographic role and several bit parts. Although she may be interested in doing more main stream work, she has yet to achieve any real success as a serious actress. Kekilli has several serious speaking roles, many of which involve genuine acting. I don't think that this article is an appropriate or necessary home for a list of Kekilli's pornographic films. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.197.145 (talk) 08:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree that the article is clear that she was actually in porn. After mentioning the claims of her acting in pornography it goes on to mention that she called it a "smear campaign" and that the paper that brought it up was reprimanded by the industry watchdog for its coverage. Reading that I was left with the impression that the paper's allegations were in fact false.Demigord (talk) 19:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

No, the article was not clear at all that Kekilli did porn films. In fact, the article was clearly written in a way that deliberately tries to conceal this fact and this is against wikipedia policies. I could agree that the importance of such a list is arguable, but definitely his past as a porn actress need to be clearly stated. I've changed the article in order to fix it. Domingos (talk) 10:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC-2)

As I said on my talk page, your edit was not an improvement to the previous wording. The previous version was already perfectly clear that she had worked in porn, so I don't think your wording change made that point any clearer either. I reverted it.Cúchullain ^t/c 12:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that.  Sandstein  14:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow, the Though Police are out in force on this article.

Her adult past ABSOLUTELY deserves to be included in this article. Not even just a (truncated) filmography, but even its own section.

Why? Because it is not the role of Wikipedia to decide what a person is or is not best known for. Wikipedia's role is to write encyclopedic entries on the topic at hand, with as little bias or editorializing as is humanly possible.

Yes--she is NOW known as a more mainstream actress. And the writing of the section about this part of her career ought to reflect that these are more mainstream roles, as well as the accolades she's received for them.

But the simple fact of the matter here is that she DID work in adult films prior to entering the mainstream. And to reduce that part of her career (TWELVE films!) to little more than a single sentence is tantamount to morality censorship; and completely at odds with what Wikipedia is all about. DigiFluid (talk) 02:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken about that. Take a look at WP:UNDUE. Essentially, about most people these days, there is so much material that we need to be selective about what to include and what not, and at what length, so as to keep the article to a manageable length. People who read a Wikipedia biography want to know what is important about a person, and not each and every published fact about them, such as the color of their toenails. And the way we make this selection is by following the lead of reliable sources. So if 99% of what has been written in reliable published source about this person has been about their work as a mainstream actress, then that is what the focus of our article should also be on. Including a lengthy section about her porn work (if that could be reliably sourced, which is not clear) and a list of all her porn films would create the false impression that she is mainly notable for being a porn star, and that would diminish the usefulness of the article to readers. This has nothing to do with morality censorship - we do have long articles about the porn work of people who are notable for being porn stars - but rather it is about getting the article right, as WP:BLP in particular requires us to.  Sandstein  06:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you're completely stretching the definition of WP:UNDUE. It's about things which can be actively refuted by evidence, and not giving undue attention to things which cannot be cited as being factual.

In the case of Ms Kekilli, it is absolutely a part of her professional past and to ignore or marginalize it would be editorializing. Yes, she is absolutely recognized as a mainstream actress now. So the sections on her professional career ought to be written in a way to emphasise that--but NOT to the near-exclusion of her past.

I bet there's a lot of people who would like to marginalize their past, but we're not here to be their publicists. Wikipedia exists to provide an encyclopedic entry on a given topic. Whitewashing someone's past because they've moved on to bigger and better things is an affront to everything that Wikipedia is. DigiFluid (talk) 07:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

No. WP:NPOV specifically says "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." The point of an encyclopedia biography is not to list off every fact you possibly can about a person, it's to include the significant information, judging by its prominence in the reliable sources. Her career in porn is significant, but not enough for its own section in her biography. The current presentation is sufficient, and more or less reflects exactly what the sources say about it.Cúchullain ^t/c 13:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Who do you work for? The Salvation Army? Your argument is so moralistic it's actually insulting to Ms. Kekili, who is in no way ashamed of her porn movies, and of course the list of them appears in WP in every other language (namely in German), in Imdb and in every bio you may find on the web. But of course, everybody else except you is completely wrong about what WP should be, including everybody else working in WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.54.52.180 (talk) 16:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia a knowledge-base or agency bulletin? Besides, since when porn career is universally deemed dishonourable or shameful? The shame is on you dear editors! (Zencefil)

I am really surprised by this nonsensical censorship. I initially suspected that the (few! - Sandstein and Cúchullain) people so determined to hide her appearance in pornography by reducing it to one mention in one sentence were clearly engaging in some image-rebuilding/whitewashing campaign, possibly even with monetary incentive. As I see that this sort of nonsense is not present in the German Wikipedia, I can only conclude that there is no conspiracy going on, and Sandstein and Cúchullain are simply opinionated against pornography or misguided in interpreting relevance. Even in the absence of a full-length list, I think the pornographic appearances should deserve their own section under "Filmography". Chymæra (talk) 23:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Sandstein - everyone disagrees with you. why cannot you accept the fact that you are wrong? none of your moderator friends are backing you up. I believe you are paid by Sibel Kekilli's agent company--Xelophate (talk) 01:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Pornographic past

Currently, the only mention of the subject's past history of pornographic films is

"Shortly after the release of Head-On, the German tabloid newspaper Bild-Zeitung revealed, in a sensationalist tone, that she had previously acted in pornographic films"...

This I find evasive and indirect. Wikipedia should not merely relay what others are saying, it should compile that information and present it as fact (obviously given that it can be verified etc). In this case the current phrasing means Wikipedia does not actually make the claim she has a pornographic past - it only reports that a source does, specifically and needlessly mentioning that source directly in the text.

Furthermore, the fact is served together with the language "in a sensationalist tone". This is highly problematic. I also note how the remainder of the paragraph is given over to language suggesting it's all false and a smear campaign.

Therefore I propose this is rewritten into terse, objective encyclopedic language, where Wikipedia simply states her pornographic past using a neutral-looking reference in the normal manner.

At the very least, the statement about her pornographic past should be separated from the statement about the Bild scandal. Then the question can be asked "is the actual revealing noteworthy?" (I personally vote no, it isn't). A single clean sentence summarizing her porn involvement serves Wikipedia much better while still avoiding undue emphasis.

Also, that the information is currently not presented in chronological order. The flow of the article gives off the impression she was new to acting in front of a camera when she was "noticed" by a casting director in 2002.

All in all, one solution would be to append this to the paragraph summarizing her pre-"Head On" life, like so:

After leaving school at age 16, she worked for two years for the local city government, then moved to Essen, where she worked various jobs, including acting in pornographic films using the stage name "Dilara".

...and then (optionally) deleting the entire paragraph on the scandal, or at the least, rewriting it thusly:

Shortly after the release of Head-On, the German tabloid newspaper Bild-Zeitung revealed her pornographic past, leading to a public scandal. Kekilli's parents broke off all contact. During her acceptance speech for the 2004 Bambi prize for best "shooting star" for her role she tearfully complained about the "dirty smear campaign" and "media rape" against her. The Bild-Zeitung was later reprimanded for the coverage by the Deutscher Presserat, the self-control institution of German publishers.

Comments? 213.112.128.96 (talk) 14:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that this aspect of her biography needs additional attention. Per WP:BLP, "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." This is particularly the case here, as she became notable in the first place (and continues to be notable) for her work as a serious actress, rather than for her pornography. That activity is incidental to her biography and became public only through the reporting of one tabloid. Also, the article is very brief and the porn issue already has a paragraph to itself; if it were any longer its weight in the article would be completely out of proportion to he weight of the text describing the work for which she is notable. On these grounds, it would violate WP:BLP to go into additional (undue) detail about this matter.

In view of the reprimand that Bild received for its reporting (see also [1]), and the description in the source ("In a no-holds-barred report, a headline in the tabloid screamed on Tuesday, "Why did the petite diva star in such hard-core pornos?""), I think it is reasonable to describe the coverage as sensationalist, although as far as I'm concerned that adjective isn't indispensable either.  Sandstein  14:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The fact that she was in porn films is not a "claim", it's a fact. Simply citing wikipedia's policies is not enough to win every arguement, Sandstein. Your declaration of a right to privacy is laughably irrelevant - she was paid to appear nude in film, the ultimate willing individual sacrifice of privacy in today's society. Your description of her as a "serious" actress and in particular your words about the story being "incidental to her biography" reveal serious bias on your part and are merely your personal opinions. Your attempts to conceal these facts and focus attention on her later career as an actress are blatant examples of POV pushing. You are not Sibel Kekilli's publicist; so stop abusing the system by removing legitimate material and hiding behind bad rhetoric. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.30.92 (talk) 04:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree with the others that the article in its actual form is biased by editing out almost everything about her pornographic past. Everybody reading about her the first time here, would never assume her to have been in adult production and see all this as a "smear campaign" against her...and this is simply telling a lie. There is more than enough source material to prove her appearance in those movies. I'm not talking about adding an extensive adult filmography but there should be an own section dealing with this part of the actresses life. And that has nothing to do with childish "OMG, let's make sure that everybody knows about her porn past" ambitions, it is just simply stating the truth...and that is what Wikipedia is supposed to do. The German article for example has an own section on her productions with Magma Films which is still a small part of the biography in comparison to the description of her career as a serious actress. Even if you (Sandstein in particular) love her recent acting - which, by the way, I do as well - that doesn't give you the right to alter a supposedly objective article to let her appear more socially acceptable. And since you seem to speak German as well, have a look at the German article and tell me where the section about her pornographic past is so "totally out of proportion". --Afghani84 (talk) 12:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE, what matters is not only whether something is true, but also whether it is appropriate to include it in an article that is supposed to provide a balanced, neutral biography. Generally, the amount of coverage any given aspect or viewpoint of a topic gets on Wikipedia is proportional to the coverage it gets in reliable sources. As far as I know, the only coverage of her pornographic activity was one or more articles in the BILD tabloid (which, for WP:BLP purposes, is hardly a reliable source), while the rest of the coverage she received is for her serious film work. Accordingly, even if details of her porn work are reliably sourceable, their inclusion here (in this very short article) would violate our rules about the treatment of biographies of living persons, because it would make that aspect of her career appear much more significant than it is.  Sandstein  15:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I see your point and it might be too much to add a paragraph right now as the article is relatively small. I will soon translate major parts from the German wiki and provide English references to those. Once the article grows, a paragraph can be added and there won't be any disambiguance about the whole topic anymore.--Afghani84 (talk) 01:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

BILD brought it up, but the topic of her short career in porn was subsequently reported on and discussed by practically the entire media in Germany, including TV shows and major magazines and newspapers like Der Spiegel, Frankfurter Allgemeine, Süddeutsche Zeitung, Die Welt and Die Zeit. Most of them focused on the way BILD covered the topic (and disapproved), but all the same they wrote about the subject. Some of those articles were in print only, and since we're talking about 2004, some articles have now disappeared from the web. You can still find quite a lot of them online, though, a selection: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. --Rosenzweig (talk) 18:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Is the fact she's a former pornographic actress who made the transition to mainstream acting not relevant to who she is? I would say its extremely relevant and that a one sentence blurb about it isn't giving it its due weight. She acted in 15 porn films, therefore this was a career for her. Why does the beginning paragraph mention every side job she did, but not her pornographic past? Also, the idea that only one German tabloid has reported on it is absurd. Every article I've read mentioning her in Game of Thrones has brought it upDruzero (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I will say that there does seem to be ample effort to suppress this information. Currently, the way it is worded makes it sound like a tabloid erroneously reported that she was a pornographic actress and then was later reprimanded for it. If this gained national media attention (or more) in Germany, then I would assume it should at least be clearly mentioned on her page. Seeing as the number of adult movies that she has acted in is still a significant portion of her overall film credits and that it was a well covered event and often mentioned in contemporary articles, the area needs some work. Our job as editors is not to sensationalize or editorialize any information--but purely to create factual and encyclopedic entries. DietFoodstamp (talk) 02:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree with the Wikipedia users here who complain about the ambiguity in the reference to her pornographic past. The way the article is written right now makes it look like the things said by Bild were all false and lies, in the sense that there was no pornographic past whatsoever and it's just a sensationalist move from the media.--190.191.50.114 (talk) 05:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure about your English reading comprehension abilities, but the article makes it quite clear that she had a pornographic past. There is no need to do more about it. The coverage is sufficient. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Childish personal attacks aside, the English reading skills of the above (and below) user(s) might be poor, fair or god-like, but the article has been written to imply what they infer. The wording has been cunningly chosen (take that, NPOV!!!) to whitewash the porn past of miss Kekilli, and make the claims look as much a defamation as possible without it (the article) being regarded as a straight lie. isilanes (talk|contribs) 11:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the article appears whitewashed. Reading this article did not at all prepare me for what I found when I put her name in a search engine. Cacophony (talk) 06:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Got here through random browsing, didn't know this actress before. Having googled around, I am stunned at how misleading the mention of her past pornographic involvment is played down in a Wikipedia article (at least in the 2017/09/01 version). From the meager text and considerable talk page, it's obvious that someone is intent on minimising this into one mere cryptic sentence. 207.96.202.138 (talk) 09:24, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I too am amazed at the obvious and deliberate attempts to conceal unpleasant and well documented facts about the article subject's past. We're not talking about someone who made a tape that somehow got leaked, we're talking about someone who worked professionally in adult films for an extended period of time and could not be regarded as anything but a "pornstar" prior to her mainstream breakthrough. This is either an encyclopedia or it isn't. SolarFlash (talk) 21:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Sandstein is POV pushing

This user's first edit on this article was the removal of information regarding Kekilli's history in porn - for the last two years all of his (numerous) edits on the page were to remove material related to this topic. This behavior is consistent with POV pushing and should be brought to the attention of other moderators. One individual should not have this level of control over an article. Sandstein is abusing his status as a wikipedia moderator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.30.92 (talk) 04:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Sandstein, right or wrong, is attempting to apply our BLP policy, and that is laudable, not an offense. When in danger of error, we err on the side of sparing the subject of the article. The matter isn't necessarily settled, but I suggest you be wary of making such charges against one of our most respected admins and (former?) member of the Arbitration Committee. Get back to discussing the issues, not other editors. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

No. User:Sandstein is trying to push his POV, and that is definitely not laudable. If he were interested in neutrality, he could have made edits in the opposite direction too, or removed as irrelevant other facts... has he? The "danger of error" is non-existant here, as the porn past of miss Kekilli is undeniable. The only effect of Sandstein's edits is to downsize the importance of Kekilli's porn past below its actual level, and that is not acceptable. Sandstein's neutrality here is quite obviously in doubt, and arguments of authority ("one of our most respected admins ...") have little to add. isilanes (talk|contribs) 11:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• If I may put in my 2 cents, the current version of the article (as of the date stamp of my comment) makes it appear as if the German magazine erred regarding her porn past, especially given that it's connected to the allegations of a "smear campaign" and also a reference to the magazine being disciplined. All that makes it seem as if the reports are false, which is clearly a factual error as it can be verified that she was in the industry (though I don't know what the article itself said, of course). Do with it as you will, but that's the impression given by the article as it currently stands. 70.72.223.215 (talk) 12:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I would like to point out three things:

1. Her porn past is relevant. To some extent. It should be clear that she used to do porn.
2. Her porn past is not terribly interesting. I don't mean 'good' or 'bad', but there's really nothing noteworthy about her porn past other than... she has one. If she had been a really famous porn star, that'd be interesting. But, as it is, any more details don't really help the reader understand the subject. A list of past titles is overkill (unless every one of those past titles were REALLY REALLY noteworthy).
3. Sandstein might be POV-pushing. He might not. Personally, I don't care (those things tend to get worked out one way or another). However, this page is for discussing changes to the article; not anyone's personal disputes with other editors. In other words, please keep that crap off the article talk pages? Take it up with relevant noticeboards, or user talk pages, but not here. 139.57.100.63 (talk) 00:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

This is an absolute outrage!

You people are probably do not consume porn, but Sibel was not someone who made an experiment and appeared in one amateur movie. These are MAJOR production houses, MMV, Videorama, Magma, Helen Duval... This is serious stuff, and a vast majority of the people involved with these houses DO make a career out of porn. I personally have not seen her outside of A Game of Thrones, but i have seen almost all of the porn titles. Need I remind you that she is still appearing on compilations (as late as 2008)?

The Sascha Grey comparison is spot-on. The problem is that she started her porn career a bit later than Sibel, under different circumstances. In the USA where porn has been mainstreem for years (no one seems to be ashamed of it, but rather proud). If Sascha were to suddenly change her mind, and decide that she wants to be known as a mainstream movie star, would you go deleting all of the info about her porn past? She was 18 when she started her porn career, early 20s when she quit, and immediately had a pretty decent kick start in mainstream movies. In 20 years time, she will probably rack up a lot of mainstream movies, which will make her few years in hardcore porn seem irrelevant if using this logic. Will anyone, ever, be able to say that Sascha Grey was not a porn star, or not a relevant one?

Sibel Kekilli has been a professional porn star, albeit it wasn't much of a career compared to some. This is a personal opinion but it should illustrate a point - had she not been 'discovered' and offered mainstream work, i am sure that she would have continued her porn career.

Does wikipedia have a specific porn policy, something of a get out of jail free card? Of course that she will receive more coverage as a mainstream actress... there is a very simple explanation for that. While there are only a couple of adult film databases, and hardly any websites that cover porn news (at least not the european scene) there are lots and lots of websites that cover mainstream film That being said, one freak successful movie could cancel her entire porn career? It was a career. DVDs with her appearing in 2008 means that she is still popular. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.91.212 (talk) 01:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The article is very clear that she had a pornographic period in her life. It isn't hidden or left out of the article. It is given the weight it deserves. The fact that those films will exist till long after her death has no meaning here. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

"Shortly after the release of Head-On, the German tabloid newspaper Bild-Zeitung revealed that she had previously acted in pornographic films using the stage name "Dilara""

A tabloid newspaper revealing an information like this in 2004 sounds very very misleading, especially when considering the "smear campaign" mentioned later. Being a fan of Magma movies, i could have revealed this to you the first time i saw her outside of porn. I haven't read the policies though, but this still seems really wrong. 1. She is known as an actress 2. She is known for the scandal 3. she is known for porn by many porn connaiseurs 4. People are interested in this fact, wikipedia should be a place that provides this information — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pailhead011 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I don't think that doing porn is a sensitive subject in and of itself, but for Sibel Kekilli it is apparently a problem. This triggers the requirement of WP:BLP that:

"Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment."

In particular, this requires us to ensure that the coverage of her porn career is in an adequate proportion to the coverage of her other career (compare WP:UNDUE), and we determine that proportion by the coverage she has received in reliable sources (WP:RS). Because, as far as I know, she is overwhelmingly written about as a serious actress (and even her porn work is only covered because of and in the context of her reputation as a serious actress), this means that her porn work must receive only passing coverage in the article. Now, if this were a ten-page featured article, a separate section about her porn work might be appropriate, but as short as the article currently is, a passing mention is all that I think is compatible with WP:BLP.  Sandstein  09:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Sandstein,What privacy are you speaking of? Her porn career is not a secret anywhere else, yet it seems to be mentioned in this article as such. And to my knowledge Ms. Kekilli has said nothing about wanting to keep her previous career private. It is not sensationalist to write she was a pornographic actress for several years, its the truth. You are pushing your POV onto this article. Here is an example of how to write about a former pornographic actress who has moved on to mainstream acting, without censoring nor sensationalizing:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dany_Verissimo

Druzero (talk) 05:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Sandstein, in general, there aren't that many european porn actresses that are covered by the mainstream media, i think that only exists in the USA, or perhaps when they run for the parliament the way dolly buster and ciciolina did. Anyway, apart from the mainstream media, i am positive that she has been covered by many many websites advertising for her movies. In any case, just a simple addition of "pornographic actress" to the list of jobs the did would be more than enough. It's not even an entire sentence, not a paragraph, far from the whole page, but it will clearly state the facts (interesting at that) and remove all the confusion about this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.91.212 (talk) 00:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Sandstein is clearly hijacking the article and has an agenda

I have read through all the comments, and came to wiki to see how many Sibel Kekilli as I heard she did regular films. Here in America she is known as a pornstar first and actress second, kind of like sasha grey but a less famous version.

According to IMDB she has well over 20 porno films including: "Lollipops 16 (video) (as Dilara)

2002 Sextrip - Heisses Pflaster Amsterdam (video) (as Dilara)

2002 Diva-Diva (video) (as Dilara)

2002 Auf frischer Tat ertappt! (video) (as Kim)

2002 Tierisches Teenie-Reiten (video) Dilara (uncredited)

2002 2002 wilde Sex-Nächte (video) (as Dilara)

2002 Süsse Teeny-Träume (video) (as Dilara)

2002 Euro Mädchen - Amateure intim 11 (video) Dilara (uncredited)

2002 Teeny Exzesse 68 - Kesse Bienen (video) (as Sybel)

2002 Casa Rosso (video) (as Dilara)

2002 Hotel Fickmichgut (video) (as Dilara)

2002 Die verfickte Praxis (video) Dilara (as Dilara)

2002 Die megageile Küken-Farm (video) (as Delara)

2002 Ein Sommertagstraum (video) Sarah (uncredited)

2001 Junge Debütantinnen 19: Deutsche Debütantinnen - Hart & herzlich (video) Kim aus Mannheim (as Kim)"

And some of these are from major studios, and there are more films on that list, and she has done porn into 2007/8, and there are other films floating on the internet but not associated with an actual film, and anyone who wants to see them can just go to google and type her name. The first thing that comes up under video search is her being pounded between the legs, the first thing that comes up under images, is her having sex-actual porn sex, butt naked, and the majority of the 1st page in search is all porn sites except 1 wiki and 1 imdb, which reveals that she had over 20 porn films, despite only having 31 appearances in films. That is the majority or near majority of her work is porn, she is a porn actress or was and anyone who cannot see that is clearly just trying to cover it up. We are not talking 1 porn film here.

And others have reported on her porn www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CFoQFjAE&url=http://www.dw.de/dw/article/0,,1118125,00.html&ei=UewnULydKOr06AHu6IGQAw&usg=AFQjCNFjiQ4peyLjAy_W8QqT-D4WyWV9GA

The real question is who is paying Sandstein to surpress information? The article should be edited to reflect her porno films — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.167.71 (talk) 18:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Article talk pages are for improving articles, not personal attacks. I make no judgement as to whether or not anyone is or is not up to nefarious shenanigans. It doesn't matter. This is not the place to pursue such problems either way. Please take it to the appropriate venue. (Hint: This isn't it) 139.57.100.63 (talk) 18:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I share the that consternation, to a certain degree, and also feel there is an agenda here. Kekilli's porn work is notable in its own right and deserves appropriate and proportionally due inclusion, something which the one allusion to a tabloid newspaper article doesn't provide. (The IMDB filmography, is certainly equally as overweight, IMO, and should have no place here, either. And don't get me started on its accuracy :-).

On the other hand, right now the issue is probably a lost cause. Sandstein is a well entrenched Wikipedian and has Administrator privileges in English Wikipedia. Below the top leadership circle, that is as powerful as it gets around here. He also edits German Wikipedia; he gutted the Kekilli article there the same way he did here.

There is nothing you or I can do about this, and every attempt would require massively more effort than it is worth. Wikipedia is an opaque thicket of power structures, nearly unnavigatable for the occasional Wikipedian like you and me. It massively favors the entrenched insiders to basically act any way they damn well please, policy-wise - provided they go through certain motions and don't piss off any other equally powerful insiders. I suggest you leave it to the Principle of Universal Karma (somehow, somewhere Mr Sandstein is going to get what karmically is His), and move your attention to endeavors more worthwhile. I, for the time being, have chosen to do so. Tullius2 (talk) 23:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

a few remarks on Kekilli's education and qualification

There were two sentences here describing Kekilli's general and professional education. While I have no doubt the original authors tried their best to translate or paraphrase what they read in German sources, the English text painted a very misleading picture. According to the English text, Kekilli left school at 16 (i.e. before graduation), did an apprenticeship (which outside of Donald Trump's show isn't really an everyday US item) and then worked in garbage disposal - invoking the mental image of her moving garbage tons around.

Though literally correct, that could hardly be less true. First, Kekilli attended "Realschule" and successfully graduated with "Mittlere Reife" - an intermediate graduation. Germany has a three-tier school system, and Realschule is the middle tier. Furthermore, given the fact Kekilli managed to get one of the rare and coveted public administration apprenticeships at her city, for which not only many of her fellow Realschule graduates competed, but also quite a few - older - graduates of the upper tier "Gynmasium", we can safely assume that her graduation marks were pretty good. During her apprenticeship she continued to attend a public special school for apprentices ("Berufsschule"), typically 1 or 2 days a week.

Two years later, she finished the final exams of her apprenticeship and graduated as a fully qualified public administration specialist ("Verwaltungsfachangestellte") - a necessary requirement for a large number of administration jobs in public, major church and semi-public institution administrations. And again, her marks, apparently, were good enough for her employer/educator - the city of Heilbronn - to offer her full time employment in her chosen profession, which she took up for another 2 years.

So the mental picture of Kekilli as dropout garbage hauler at the bottom of society should be replaced by a decently educated salaried white collar worker in a next-to-unfireable muncipal administration job, at age 20 making about 30-36k a year(in today's US$), which puts her firmly in or above lower middle class in Germany. My aplogies for overdramatizing a bit, but the point needed to be made :-) Tullius2 (talk) 23:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

You're mostly right, but the school she attended, the Fritz-Ulrich-Schule in Heilbronn-Böckingen, is not a Realschule. As of now, it is a "Grund- und Werkrealschule", which is not the same school type, but a combination of an elementary school with a special type of secondary school found only in Baden-Württemberg. In 1996, when Kekilli "graduated", it was a "Grund- und Hauptschule". It is possible to achieve the Mittlere Reife not only at the Realschule, but also at other types of schools, this varies among the German states and has changed over time. This article says she was in the first class to get the Mittlere Reife there and that indeed she was one of the best students. The article also mentions her (non-identical) twin sister which so far isn't mentioned in the (English) Wikipedia article. --Rosenzweig (talk) 17:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

reporting on her past

The way the article does not state her pornographic past itself, only reports that a specific and named source does, is not how things are done. It is Wikipedia that should state the facts, and then provide references that verify it.

The way the fact SK has a pornographic past was previously reported, focus was moved away from the fact itself, and put on the reporting source and the subsequent scandal. That is a separate event, and should be mentioned separately. To be clear: that the news story was broken by Bild Zeitung has no relevance on the basic fact, and should be kept separate.

You don't see Wikipedia say "this and this happened, as reported by so-and-so source". Instead, the way to write this is (example):

• This and this happened[4]

Ref --- [4] So-and-so source.

Btw, I'll go add add a second source backing up the basic statement, apart from the Deutsche Welle article, which seems more interested in the scandal than the fact itself.

CapnZapp (talk) 13:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Pornographic actor catagories

Turkish female pornographic film actors German female pornographic film actors these to links should be there at the bottom that way it links to the other page pornographic actors by nationallty page 24.207.50.107 (talk) 08:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Certainly not "Turkish...", because Kekilli is not a Turkish national nor has she lived in Turkey. As regards the "German...", that is questionable at best, because Kekilli is not notable for her porn work; rather, her porn career became a matter of (tabloid) public interest only after her breakthrough as a serious actress.  Sandstein  11:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

For the record the section that says she was born to a family of "Turkish origin" is not correct. She was born a Turkish citizen to two Turkish citizens. She became a German citizen after application following the change in the laws when she was an adult. She still remains a Turkish national and a Turkish citizen. She is a dual national and a de jure dual citizen. 108.18.78.59 (talk) 10:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: per Sandstein's comments.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Just for the record: She was a Turkish national until the age of 19 or so, only then did she apply for German citizenship. That was before she did any films or videos though AFAIK. --Rosenzweig (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Sandstein: that is not how categories work. Categories are intended to be complete collections of articles that fulfil particular objective criteria. For example, everyone who is known to be gay is categorized as such, even if it's only mentioned in passing in one sentence in their article. That doesn't imply that their homosexuality is a majorly notable aspect of their life. – Smyth\^talk 22:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Can we have a bit of respect for people's privacy? (Thank you, BLP.) Categories do, well, categorize and label people in binary, absolute ways. Yes, they are sometimes overused for agenda-pushing. That doesn't mean they should be. Feketekave (talk) 19:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

For future reference, WP:COP#N says: "an article about a person should be categorized in terms of occupation only by the reason(s) for the person's notability. [...] Many people had assorted jobs before taking the one that made them notable; those other jobs should not be categorized." Fair enough. – Smyth\^talk 12:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

It is inherently relevant for several reasons. Pornographic film acting is acting, a type of acting, and the woman is an actress. It is much more relevant than her job as a cleaner. Also Game of Thrones particularly is well known for hiring people from pornographic films. There are about ten pornographic film actresses who have appeared.10:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.78.59 (talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2014

nationality = German/Turkish 110.148.117.91 (talk) 05:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Are there reliable sources (WP:RS) that establish that she has or had Turkish nationality?  Sandstein  06:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sam Sailor ^Sing 11:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Her parents were Turkish citizens at the time of her birth. Right now the wording "Turkish origin" implies something other than Turkish citizenship, which is wrong. As a child of Gastarbeiter myself, who like Kekilli, got German citizenship as an adult, I know this issue well. Anyone who knows the timing of the German law knows she was born a Turkish national and Turkish citizen -- and she did not (and could not) lose either under Turkish law when she elected German citizenship as an adult. She is dejure and defacto Turkish citizen and Turkish national in addition to being a German citizen. ALL the source material tat discusses her background already in the article sources says she elected German citizenship as an adult -- ie not born German citizen. Her parents were not German citizens but Turkish citizens, giving birth to a Turkish citizen in Germany.108.18.78.59 (talk) 03:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Sounds plausible, but per WP:BLP we really do need a reliable source that says so before we can add it to the article.  Sandstein  06:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Why do you say that "she did not (and could not) lose either under Turkish law when she elected German citizenship as an adult", meaning "Turkish citizen and Turkish national"? Do you think that Turkey is generally refusing Turks to relinquish their Turkish citizenship? The German government list several such states here, but Turkey is not on that list. AFAIK, the norm was that for a Turk to acquire German citizenship, (s)he had to relinquish Turkish citizenship. This was changed last year (I think), but only for those born in 1990 or later who were born in Germany and grew up there. Kekilli was born in 1980 and became a German national in or around 1999. --Rosenzweig (talk) 22:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Kekilli actually formally petitioned Turkey to relinquish her her citzizenship when she applied for German Citizenship in 1999. One of the reasons moving her was a bureaucratic mishap by Turkish authorities that managed to sabotage her attempt to marry her then-boyfriend. She talked about that in a TV interview; German Wikipedia has a link to a (now defunct) transcript of that interview. Wefa (talk) 19:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

This source, which is cited in the article, appears to confirm that she originally held Turkish (not German) citizenship and needed to apply for a marriage license from Turkey ("Zuerst traf das aus der Türkei angeforderte Ehefähigkeitszeugnis zu spät ein - Sibel hatte noch keinen deutschen Pass"). German nationality law does not automatically consider anyone born in Germany to be a citizen of Germany (and presumably also wasn't doing that in 1980). — BarrelProof (talk) 03:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Shae

Hi, there should be an article about her GOT character Shae, right now there's this: Shae (A Song of Ice and Fire) (redirecting to Tyrion Lannister). Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 13:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sibel Kekilli. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100222022121/http://de.movies.yahoo.com/schauspieler/k/sibel-kekilli/biografie-33775.html to http://de.movies.yahoo.com/schauspieler/k/sibel-kekilli/biografie-33775.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721214748/http://grrm.livejournal.com/168824.html to http://grrm.livejournal.com/168824.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Apophasis

Please reset the comments page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.108.27.26 (talk) 09:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2019

In the Television section of her filmography pls add her starring role in "Bullets". Pls amend the table to:

Year	Title	Role	Notes
2010–2017	Tatort	Sarah Brandt	14 episodes
2011–2014	Game of Thrones	Shae	20 episodes
2018	Bullets	Madina Taburova	10 episodes

Thx

118.209.33.89 (talk) 13:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done NiciVampireHeart 13:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Partial revert of 18 April 2021

This diff shows the effect of a partial revert by two editors of some edits I made a few hours ago. I am trying to figure out what is objectionable about the remaining differences.

1. I replaced a bare-url reference (see {{bare urls}}) with a completed {{cite web}} citation template that I believe accurately describes the cited source. How could that be undesirable?
2. In several places, the article is quoting Ms Kekilli as saying things that that appear to be obviously different from what she said. This involves matters of translation. MOS:FOREIGNQUOTE appears to support my changes, as far as I can tell. In what way were these changes undesirable?
3. The WP:MOS discourages using Wikilinks within quotes. I remove several links within quotes that are for terms that should be familiar to most readers. How is that undesirable?
4. I changed a fragmented quote ("'bigoted' and 'full of hate'") to a non-fragmented quote that uses the same number of words ("'bigoted, hypocrites and full of hate'"). How is that undesirable?
5. As per my comment above, I added a sentence saying that she originally held Turkish (not German) citizenship and needed to apply for a marriage license from Turkey, with a citation to a source that was already cited in the article. How is that undesirable?
6. Three cited web pages have actual titles that are different from the title we are displaying for them in the article. How could correcting that be undesirable?
7. As I believe is conventional in many articles, I inserted an alternative name by which the topic has been known and has been credited in a number of films, along with providing a cited source that I believe is reliable. I checked the reliable sources noticeboard archives to confirm that the source seemed reliable. The alternative name can also be found in several other of the cited sources. I can understand that this might be controversial. However, my impression is that if the subject is well known by that alternative name, it should be desirable to include the alternative name in the article. I think it is not disputable that the subject is well known by that alternative name.

Can some explanation be offered, please? — BarrelProof (talk) 15:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Have restored your version now other than the part that was disputed by user @Sandstein. Personally i think its fine to include her porn name but i can see both arguments --- FMSky (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

German Language sources

Ì noticed the citation needed tag next to the sentence on Kekilli's Job training. The source for that quoted by German Wikipedia is an article in her home town paper, the Heilbronner Stimme. I suggest listing that article as a source here as well, since English language papers tend to get confused by aspects of the German education system that have no equivalence in the US and usually gloss over it. Wefa (talk) 13:44, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

most prestigious award, not "awards"

74.14.200.10 (talk) 19:47, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done --FMSky (talk) 11:49, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Theatre debut as a guest actor at Berliner Ensemble

Sibel Kekilli's theatre debut in 2024 is called "Fremd" by Michel Friedman. https://www.berliner-ensemble.de/en/production/fremd 37.84.170.130 (talk) 14:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Premiere was on 26. Oct 2023. my bad. 37.84.197.60 (talk) 20:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)