Talk:Bonnie Blue/Archive 1

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cielquiparle talk 20:49, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Bonnie Blue in June 2024

• ... that the pornographic actress Bonnie Blue (pictured) attributes her success with married men to their wives?
  • ALT1: ... that for three weeks in 2024, Bonnie Blue (pictured) allowed men to have sex with her for free on one condition?
  • ALT2: ... that the OnlyFans creator Bonnie Blue (pictured) began producing content with 18-year-olds as she felt that the platform's existing content was not authentic or educational enough?
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/German atrocities committed against prisoners of war during World War II
  • Comment: There are some great hooks in this. There's a bit in the video I got the image from where she said her shortest scene lasted nine seconds and it's a crying shame it isn't due.

Created by Launchballer (talk) and Meena (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 265 past nominations.

Launchballer 04:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC).

• Comment I think the facts about her being banned from Australia and Fiji are really interesting/crazy so I want to suggest some alts if you don't mind:

  ALT3: ... that Bonnie Blue (pictured) was banned from multiple countries because of her porn career?

  ALT4: ... that Bonnie Blue (pictured) was banned from multiple countries because she had too much sex?

Di (they-them) (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

"Multiple countries" would need an end-of-sentence citation for Australia. That said, "that Matty Healy is banned from Dubai" was the most-viewed non-image hook of May 2023, so perhaps a bald ALT5: ... that Bonnie Blue (pictured) is banned from Fiji?--Launchballer 15:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I reworded the sentence in question, so either ALT3 or ALT4 could be trimmed at 'countries'.--Launchballer 04:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article is new enough, long enough, sourced enough (althought some international coverage might be a nice addition), is neutral and is plagiarism free (just quotes from Earwig). Hooks are cited, and interesting. Image is free to use, and is clear, CC BY checked on Commons and YT. QPQ is done. On the hooks, I think "... is banned in Fiji" is a good one - I feel like 'multiple countries' implies several (i.e. 3+), not two places. Lajmmoore (talk) 12:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

ALT5 appears to be unduly negative for a hook. Pinging another promoter AirshipJungleman29 for thoughts. SL93 (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I think ALTs 3–5 violate WP:DYKBLP SL93. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

That's a shame, I'd agree with 3-4, but I thought 5 was OK as its brief, and avoided gratuity. Happy to support consensus though! It's so interesting how interpretation of the guidelines differs between people Lajmmoore (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

This discussion seemed to skip over the first three hooks; they have neither been approved or rejected. Could someone assess them?--Launchballer 23:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Launchballer I can if you want me to, but I didn't because barely anyone has been promoting nominations that I have been involved in and barely anyone else have been building preps. SL93 (talk) 01:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

No preference.--Launchballer 02:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Hook reviews:

• ALT0 so the source in Glamour UK but it is quoting the Daily Star & the full quotation goes: "Blue has also made claims about sleeping with married men, claiming that these men came to her because they were not satisfied by their partners. “It’s no secret women moan a lot,” she said to the Daily Star. "What they don’t understand is all that moaning is unattractive and making their men look else where for fun and pleasure." She added, “If women were better in the bedroom, men wouldn’t cheat. All their nagging about pots not being done is resulting in me being bent over their kitchen worktops whilst they’re out. I used to blame the men for cheating but since being a sex worker, I blame the woman. Men look elsewhere when they’re bored, so stop boring them.” I'would welcome advice on whether Glamour quoting the Daily Star counts as a RS? I also think the current wording hides the full implication of her beliefs i.e. that women are bad at sex so that forces men to go to her. ?
• ALT1 so the source is Cosmopolitan which is taken as a RS on a case by case basis - here I think I'd lean towards it being reliable, as they quote Blue & the full quotation is "Blue said she offers the students the chance to have sex with her for free on the basis that she can film it and use the content in her online material." Y
• ALT2 the source used in from GB News which is deemed unreliable (WP:GBNEWS) and "shouldn't be used as a source for living people" as per WP:GUNREL - I missed this totally when I did the initial review, so this is my mistake. I would recommend alternative sourcing is found for its inline referencing. N
• ALT3 as discussion above
• ALT4 as discussion above
• ALT5 as discussion above

Overall, and admitting my own mistake, I would suggest that ALT1 is OK to be used, but that ALTS 0 and 2 are not from reliable enough sources. Further GB News can't be used to support information inline, please ping me when that is removed. Thanks very much for the reminder to be thorough, a good set of lessons for me as a reviewer Lajmmoore (talk) 21:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I have removed GB News from prose, even though it was my understanding that interviews come under WP:ABOUTSELF. It should still be fine for the Filmography table. I missed the phrase "Daily Star" in the source and assumed it was said in a podcast, so cut.--Launchballer 21:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I just discovered this, and in my view any DYK hook that talks about a living person committing adultery should be nowhere near the main page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

DYKHOOKBLP only applies to unduly negative hooks and there is no way that a hook about a sex worker having sex qualifies for that.--Launchballer 10:04, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Let's strike ALT0 then - I doubt the security of the sourcing anyway, but ALT1 doesn't mention adultery Lajmmoore (talk) 14:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

@Lajmmoore: Is this approved? If not, what else do I have to do?--Launchballer 17:00, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry Launchballer, I was waiting to see if Ritchie333 was OK with ALT0 being struck, but I forgot to ping! I can approve ALT1. (FYI I am going to be offline for about ten days though from tomorrow) Lajmmoore (talk) 21:21, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Re-ping to @Ritchie333: as per above comment Lajmmoore (talk) 18:42, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I still think putting this on the main page isn't a good idea. Looks like I'll have to escalate this as we're not going to agree. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:46, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

How about

• ALT1a: ... that for three weeks in 2024, Bonnie Blue (pictured) allowed male students to have sex with her on the condition that she was allowed to film them and publish the content?

TarnishedPath^talk 11:29, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Eh. I say adding "for free" adds interest and stating the condition would remove it. I can also suggest:

ALT6: ... that Bonnie Blue (pictured) has been described as having "given hypersexuality a figurehead"?

ALT7: ... that when Bonnie Blue (pictured) went viral, one commentator attributed it to the "outrage economy"?

ALT8: ... that both Bonnie Blue (pictured) and the 4B movement have been described as "highly-publicised and extreme responses to our sexual culture"?--Launchballer 15:28, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Launchballer could you say which source supports each? Lajmmoore (talk) 18:10, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

6 and 8 are sourced to , while 7 is sourced to .--Launchballer 21:52, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

*ALT6 - the quote is "hypersexualistion a figurehead" - which we could change the ALT to as the source is good.

*ALT7 - I think "commentor" should change to "journalist" since Claire Hubble is Head of Audience for the i (here & here)

• ALT8 - no issues

Thanks for revising the hooks Launchballer, I think with the tweaks all three could be suited Lajmmoore (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

ALT9: ... that Bonnie Blue (pictured) has been described as having "given hypersexualisation a figurehead"?

ALT10: ... that when Bonnie Blue (pictured) went viral, one journalist attributed it to the "outrage economy"?--Launchballer 23:47, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Ritchie333 do ALTS 8, 9 and 10 allay your concerns as per this discussion? Lajmmoore (talk) 09:33, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I think ALT10 is probably my preference. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:21, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks very much everyone! A comment for the promoter that ALT10 has the most consensus. Many thanks Lajmmoore (talk) 20:40, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Less interesting may be the fact that she was denied the tourist visa she had applied for (which "does not allow you to work in the country, including as a paid content creator") and then did the same thing in another country. Maybe not so much "because of her porn career" or "had too much sex" and a bit more of "vocally and publicly intended to breach the conditions of her tourist visa".Parsons nose (talk) 07:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Personal opinions

Lots of guff in the article about what people have said about her and her actions. Many people have their opinions and there could be a never ending list of them here. Maybe could just include ones from people who are directly connected to her in some way, or something else perhaps. 23:36, 13 February 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7C:6A3A:F800:39CD:E3B5:47C0:E3FC (talk)

Name

The performer's name is mentioned in reputable citations including this one which is already used in the article. Additionally Sky News, Derby Telegraph, Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, Nottingham Post. Why does Wikipedia self-censor when mainstream news in the performer's country of origin (and therefore subject to criminal and civil proceedings if breaking the law, which American-based Wikipedia isn't) are publishing it freely? Why do certain people have a veto over facts that are in the public domain? Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

While I'm not going to revert it, I'm astonished that the legal name is removed per "legal name is only mentioned in passing, no significant loss of understanding by omitting legal name" How else is the legal name of a performer known by a pseudonym going to be mentioned except in passing? For example, news articles about Stormzy will mention his name once, we're not honestly expecting them to repeat it. Which names "contribute to our understanding"? "Paul David Hewson" is about the 10,000th most interesting thing about Bono, for example. I can't believe Wikipedia, in the United States, is being more coy with celebrity details than the BBC, who are located in the same jurisdiction as the subject. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:50, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@Unknown Temptation: This was discussed at User talk:Launchballer#Bonnie Blue, where I refuted the "significant loss" argument. Having read this, I am seriously considering putting it back, but I'll let you chip into that conversation first.--Launchballer 21:58, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

The fact that omitting the subject's legal name does not result in a significant loss of context has not been refuted. The subject is only notable under the pseudonym "Bonnie Blue", i.e. they are deliberately concealing their name from the public, which raises significant privacy concerns for its inclusion. Please explain why the name is essential to understanding the subject. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:28, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I told you already that we only consider "significant loss of context" when her name "has not been widely disseminated", which clearly doesn't apply, "or has been intentionally concealed", which is not the same as "is only notable under that name". Its importance in understanding her does not matter.--Launchballer 22:40, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

The importance is stated under WP:BLPNAME: it is often preferable to omit [the name], especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. The subject has deliberately concealed their name from the public. What context is being lost here? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:55, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Pregnancy claim

Multiple sources are reporting that she and Phillips have admitted to faking being pregnant. I haven't added it myself, as these sources look tabloid-y and I don't which would be considered the most reliable. Blue has been further criticised for sexualising childbirth after announcing she would livestream it on her Onlyfans account. 2A02:C7C:E462:1200:E4DA:F63C:3C04:4A44 (talk) 22:51, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I had a flick through several pages of results on Google Books and the closest I could find to reliability was this in The Sunday Times (Western Australia).--Launchballer 23:15, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

'attributed the reaction to Saving Grace on the podcast's female audience'?

This doesn't quite compute grammatically, I think. You attribute things to things, not on things. Also, I don't find the claim in the cited source. The source does include accusations of misogyny, but they are not motivated by this particular statement that she is alleged to have made. 62.73.72.3 (talk) 22:52, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2025

2A00:23C8:5BB1:5400:65C0:475C:345B:60F2 (talk) 17:44, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Launchballer 17:47, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Full birthdate

Hiya @Launchballer, does the following instagram post published on 14 May [here] by the subject, count as a reliable source for the performer's birthday as per WP:ABOUTSELF/WP:BLPSELFPUB? I'm aware that some editors have previously tried adding her full birthdate as 14 May 1999, but you seemingly want a currently unavailable perennial source, for her birthday in May only. Regards, Diademchild^☥ _{🗣Sọ̀rọ̀ níbí} 11:35, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Works a treat, thank you.--Launchballer 11:44, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Hiya @Launchballer, I support your initial stance of including/reinstating this subject's full birthdate and real name. As a matter of fact, I'm sure that there are some other reliable sources documenting her full name, and this link here should surely be one of them sufficient enough for any editor to cite as a perennial source, since information/news on/from Yahoo, is generally considered reliable. Regards, Diademchild^☥ _{🗣Sọ̀rọ̀ níbí} 21:18, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Instagram isn’t to be taken as a reliable source though except in rare cases. Have any realiable sources outside of her own Instagram account given her birthday? Trillfendi (talk) 21:26, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Hiya @Trillfendi, well in the first twenty seconds of her introduction in this podcast link here streamed live on 20 May 2024, she indirectly claims/confirms to be born in May 1999 as per WP:BLPSELFPUB. This is because if you watch from the 12:45 minute, she stated she was aged 25 and that her birthday "had just been", which likely indicates less than a week (or seven days) prior to that livestream on 20 May (i.e. 14 May). So quite effectively, her Instagram birthday post above in May, correlates with the information about her birthday being on 14 May from other sources. Or what do you think? Diademchild^☥ _{🗣Sọ̀rọ̀ níbí} 21:40, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

except in rare cases Of which this is one. WP:ABOUTSELF allows the use of self-published sources for non-self-serving claims like her birth date.--Launchballer 21:46, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@Launchballer: a birthday is not the same as a full date of birth. I do not believe that combining different sources, none of which contain all the information necessary to arrive at the exact date, is what's meant by "routine calculation". That would be something like straightforwardly calculating a person's current age from a given date of birth. The fact that the subject has not chosen to reveal the exact date raises WP:BLPPRIVACY concerns as well. We should go back to simply naming the approximate birth year based on reliable, independent sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:37, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

What did you think she meant when she posted "instead of opening presents for my birthday today… I opened some legs instead" on 14 May?--Launchballer 22:50, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

The birthday alone does not indicate the subject's age. Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:50, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

What I'm saying is on Wikipedia it has to be full birthdate given in the source to be used. If it were an instance like Hunter Schafer for example where the birthday was wrong until she publicly corrected it, then Instagram is suitable. But just saying 14 May and then tacking on a year at the end is what we try to avoid. Since Blue has many reliable sources reporting on her seemingly daily, I feel it won't be long until one gives a full birthday. Trillfendi (talk) 17:07, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Observing this minor back and forth, I don’t really think there’s any right or wrong perspective here between @Launchballer and @Sangdeboeuf. However @Trillfendi, I don’t think @Launchballer has simply just stuck on a birth-year at the end of the subject’s birthdate. It was done with sensible reasoning.

Having been in previous discussions myself around combining sources to reach the conclusion of a living person’s birthdate (before), I think the likes of me and @Launchballer are perhaps happy to be routinely calculated, than other editors who aren’t as mathematical/calculative. But I guess this is what makes Wikipedia unique; having various users and editors who interpret information differently, coming together to editorially collaborate, provided there is harmony and respect.

But asides all that, I think it could be reasonable to apply a baseline benefit of the doubt in the birthdate calculation of this subject’s page. This is because, the subject of this page (Bonnie Blue) has gone on many podcasts [between] after mid-2024 (i.e. June 2024) and before last month (i.e. May 2025), and has either let slip or confirmed her age to be 25-years-old such as in these interviews here, here and here. And in another podcast (linked above here) she happily confirmed her birthday to be in May; so by logical deduction it’s apparent that she would have turned aged 26 this calendar year (of 2025) on whenever her birthday is/was in May. So, I think at least if we’re trying to pinpoint her exact birthdate, we could definitely say it is/was either likely in May 1999, but less so (and very unlikely to be) in May 1998 or May 2000, especially if we were to provide some kind of range e.g. 1998–2000, 1998–1999 or 1999–2000.

Now although reliable perennial sources provide great citations for living persons, I think if we observe perennial sources especially when it/they pertain(s) to living persons, you’d see that it is used to cite birthdays of respectable/respected individuals of/in their nation/world. So arguably/unsurprisingly the reason there hasn’t been a perennial source confirming this subject’s full birthdate (as of yet) anyways, is likely because (before now) she has done nothing societally respected or valuable. Without sounding demeaning, if she had actaully chosen any other decent career choice and garnered fame through it, by now there likely would have been citations from perennial sources regarding her birthdate. And this realisation is the case with a lot of (other famous) adult content creators too – as you’d be hard pressed to find a perennial source boldly confirming/stating their birthdate either before or until their eventual career or physical demise. So as things stand right now in her career, for example, if unfortunately the subject was to somehow pass away, then all reliable or perennial sources would surely then be forced to confirm and publish her full birthdate, since she had already become a public figure before now.

But, yes, the final edit regarding her birthdate may require editorial advice from an admin. And I think regarding her full birthdate, instead of waiting for such eventual unfortunate news, we should either grant a benefit of the doubt even if through “smart detective work” by/with good faith, or majorly to rely on any relevant WP:ABOUTSELF/WP:BLPSELFPUB birthday material/posts like this, from the subject herself. Diademchild^☥ _{🗣Sọ̀rọ̀ níbí} 19:54, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

WP:RSP says that Yahoo's original content is RS and that is syndicated content from City AM. Not seeing anything in the RSN archives, so am happy to take the remover at their word.--Launchballer 21:50, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Oh okay, fair enough. Well other arguably current respected sources that I could readily find, concerning her full birthname were from/on Bonnie Blue sneaks into Premier League stadium in disguise after being banned, removed by security The Hindustan Times/The Hindu, E!, or The Week. However there are plenty perennial sources citing her birthname without her middle name, so I'm sure when you eventually compile your citebundle for her birthname, you may be spoilt for choice. Diademchild^☥ _{🗣Sọ̀rọ̀ níbí} 22:19, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 3 June 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved, but Bonnie Blue (disambiguation) is moved to Bonnie Blue so there's no overall primary topic  — Amakuru (talk) 12:42, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

---

Bonnie Blue (actress) → Bonnie Blue – Averaging far more views than the Bonnie Blue flag daily. Suggesting that the redirect is removed and article is changed to Bonnie Blue. 90.202.197.103 (talk) 01:41, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. The article is not even six months old yet (notwithstanding the article's first versions that were revision deleted). The recent views are primarily based on recentism and news spikes. We should not continuously move pages to chase the latest subjects in the news, particularly subjects that seem to be featured more in tabloid journalism or entertainment journalism (rather than in 'serious' journalism, or something more academic or educational). Let's wait until the recentism has calmed down, and for now let's error on the side of WP:NOPRIMARY. Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:03, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with Zzyzx11. Too soon to demonstrate lasting primary topic. No rush and generally unnecessary. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:02, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
• Move Bonnie Blue (disambiguation) → Bonnie Blue per WP:NOPRIMARY. Leave Bonnie Blue (actress), Bonnie Blue flag, and the other entries at the DAB page titled as they are. I partly agree with Zzyzx11, but currently Bonnie Blue is a primary redirect to Bonnie Blue flag and so to err on the side of WP:NOPRIMARY requires fixing this. We also can't discount the reasons for her popularity, and six months of sustained pageviews is not something to wholly dismiss, but I agree it's not enough to make the actress the primary topic.--MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 14:14, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
• Agree with Myceteae to move the dab page to the current redirect Bonnie Blue per their reasoning. --John B123 (talk) 19:04, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment, WikiProject Nottinghamshire, WikiProject Internet culture, WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, and WikiProject Pornography have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 09:06, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:RS for name and early life

https://archive.ph/CgcHe

But Blue (whose real name is Tia Billinger)...

Some of the information contradicts that in this page.

She was in her early twenties, married to her teenage sweetheart, pursuing a career in recruitment and living in Derbyshire, the county of her birth. The infobox says she was born in the neighbouring county of Nottinghamshire. GhulamIslam (talk) 23:15, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

The Spectator is not a good enough source for facts like that.--Launchballer 23:22, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

WP:THESPECTATOR primarily consists of opinion commentary. Any source using phrases like cascade of depravity and curse I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy is not reliable for factual information. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:02, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

It's clearly an opinion piece but up until this point I hadn't seen her legal name mentioned outside of tabloids. Until it's reported in more high-quality sources, I'm in favour of omitting the "Tia Billinger" name. GhulamIslam (talk) 17:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Users Launchballer and Isaidnoway have demonstrated that her legal name has been published in multiple reliable sources. GhulamIslam (talk) 19:44, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

The BBC, SCMP, and Telegraph are not tabloids. I posted at WP:BLPN#Bonnie Blue (actress).--Launchballer 16:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

• Came here from BLPN. Support her real name being included per DUE. In additon to the sources already listed, it has also been reported in the following sources: The Independent, La República –ProQuest 3169962760, El Imparcial – ProQuest 3170738415, Ámbito Financiero – ProQuest 3156324915, Broadcast – ProQuest 3203189582, Publimetro – ProQuest 3168982860, O Globo – ProQuest 3130604796, Australian Financial Review – ProQuest 3167585088. And here are several sources that give her full name as Tia Emma Billinger Hindustan Times, Indy 100, E! Entertainment, Extra.ie, OK Magazine, Complex Magazine, and here is her birth announcement, which confirms May 14, 1999 as her DOB. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

  It's easy to plug a name into a Google search and come up with multiple sources for it. That's not the same as due weight. I'll have more to say at the BLP noticeboard. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:36, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

  Well yeah, it's kinda hard to do an internet search without using Bonnie Blue as your search criteria. It's not like you can just leave the search field blank. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:20, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

  WP:WEIGHT means looking at the incidence of the name in proportion to the total RS coverage of the subject, as well as the context in which it is mentioned. Just listing a bunch of links doesn't do that. However, due weight is probably not the right standard for basic information like a person's name. Concerns related to privacy of living persons are more salient here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:19, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

  Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources

  So listing a "bunch of links" - here's even more, in addition to the 17 already listed - (, , , , , ), establishes that it has been widely published, and the context in which it is mentioned in the sources is to inform their readers that this is her real name, which is not unusual for media outlets to do with people who use a stage name. And it's hard to argue that she values her privacy, and is trying to keep details of her life private, when she is openly talking about her marriage, and doing interviews with her mum. There is no harm being caused to the subject by including basic biographical info, i.e. her real name. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:36, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

  Unless Blue's mother and spouse are also public figures, their connection with Blue does not outweigh Wikipedia's strong presumption in favor of privacy. The potential harm is exposing people to harassment and identity theft. This is explained under WP:BLPPRIVACY, which also states, The standard for inclusion of personal information of living persons is higher than mere existence of a reliable source. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:12, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

  Unless you can provide sources that say she values her privacy and doesn't want her real name known, or has concerns about harassment, or identify theft, then it can be included, as her real name has been widely published by reliable sources. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:34, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

  Hiya @Isaidnoway and @Launchballer. With recent edits made by @NuestroBrasil and @JalenBarks to try and include this subject’s fullname in her article page’s introduction and infobox, I was wondering what the final consensus was? Because apart from @Sangdeboeuf, there seems to be a general consensus at least that her fullname be included with no violation of any privacy concerns. Plus in this recent interview here from the 10:24 minute mark, she seemingly confirms her fullname and/or has no concerns about it being out there in public, as per WP:ABOUTSELF/WP:BLPSELFPUB. So, are we still happy to include it, because I see no harm being caused to the subject by including a basic biographical information like her fullname. Diademchild^☥ _{🗣Sọ̀rọ̀ níbí} 17:04, 23 June 2025 (UTC) User has been topic-banned from all BLP articles and talk pages.

  Consensus is not a head count. Self-published interviews and podcasts are not reliable sources for BLPs unless published by the subject themselves. This one was not, so ABOUTSELF doesn't apply. Stand Out TV may call themselves the "hub of UK entertainment", but it's just another clickbait podcast like countless others. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

  Why do/would you label most online podcasts as clickbait, when most do provide decent/factual interviews of notable persons? Surely it’s relatively safe to say that even you know that her fullname having been published out there via avalable reliable and/or unreliable sources and as well from herself are consistent, and hence must be true? Plus it surely makes no sense why other secondary language versions of this subject’s article page on Wikipedia, do rightly include her correct fullname and birthdate, whereas the de-facto languaged version of her article page here does not? An example of the subject’s birth announcement here would qualify as reliable information on any other notable person’s article page as well. You’re assuming she want’s privacy around her real name, but no where has she claimed that she values her privacy and doesn’t want her fullname being known? And as per @Isaidnoway’s several weblinks to her fullname above, could you justifiably say there that her fullname hasn’t been widely published online? Diademchild^☥ _{🗣Sọ̀rọ̀ níbí} 18:35, 23 June 2025 (UTC) User has been topic-banned from all BLP articles and talk pages.

  WP:THETRUTH is not our concern. Neither are the contents of Wikipedia in other languages (WP:OTHERCONTENT). We include names that have been widely published in reliable sources, not garbage clickbait podcasts. We have a presumption in favor of privacy, so if the subject themselves has not indicated either way whether they want their full name to be known, we err on the side of not including it. Blue has not published her full name anywhere online (WP:ABOUTSELF) as far as I'm aware. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

  Well as per WP:ABOUTSELF this is indeed her verified LinkedIn page, and since becoming famous, she hasn’t taken it down, because as alluded to previously, she doesn’t mind her fullname: Tia (Emma) Billinger being publicly known. Diademchild^☥ _{🗣Sọ̀rọ̀ níbí} 19:47, 23 June 2025 (UTC) User has been topic-banned from all BLP articles and talk pages.

  Anybody can set up a LinkedIn page. I'm not seeing anything to verify that it's controlled by the subject of this article, or related to them in any way. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

  It’s as if you’re doing/saying anything to deny any valid reason as to why we cannot rightly include her fullname on her article page lol. Her own profile picture from her pre-notorious working life is on that LinkedIn account/page with correlating information that she herself goes about spreading on both various national television interviews and online podcasts, whenever she gets asked about her normal working life prior to fame/notoriety, yet you’re (somewhat being overly-clever by) just trying to downplay that she once had or still has active ownership of that LinkedIn account with her name on it. She’s obviously/probably forgotten that LinkedIn account is not deactivated, yet concerning her it provides a valid clue pertaining to WP:ABOUTSELF. And obviously now that she’s famous, she probably doesn’t (readily) need or have access to that LinkedIn account; heck she might have even forgotten that LinkedIn account’s password. But, I’m sure we both know that people/collegaues who connected with her on there prior to her becoming famous/notorious, would (surely/likely) confirm that she indeed is/was the owner of that LinkedIn account here. Diademchild^☥ _{🗣Sọ̀rọ̀ níbí} 20:17, 23 June 2025 (UTC) User has been topic-banned from all BLP articles and talk pages.

  This is pure original research. It doesn't matter what you or I think is valid; we go by published, reliable sources that directly support the material in question. We don't speculate what might or might not be true as a basis for claims about living people. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:28, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

  There is no indication Bellinger doesn't want her name known, all the evidence points to the contrary. She used her real name in the above interview, and ABOUTSELF says Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves.

  On May 21, according to a video posted on her verified Instagram page, with 800,000+ followers, Blue was allegedly frisked by UK law-enforcement officers. Blue's sister captioned the clip: "As you may have seen, Tia has been arrested. We still don’t have clarity on the situation...Your’s sincerely Tia’s Sister, and is still online as of June 23. If she didn't want her real name known, then she wouldn't be sharing it on her Instagram and in an interview. The burden for inclusion has been met, and at this point, you are just filibustering. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:27, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

  The above interview was not published by Blue, so WP:ABOUTSELF doesn't apply. Social media comments by relatives are not usable either. The fact that Blue allowed an Instagram caption to appear does not imply that she endorses its contents. It's also a third-party claim which is not allowed per ABOUTSELF. None of which really matters because "Tia" is not her full name anyway. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:37, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

  The above interview was given consent by the subject to get posted/published. Just because it wasn’t posted directly by/from her, it doesn’t mean that she hasn’t indirectly confirmed all the information that came directly out of/from her mouth, regarding WP:ABOUTSELF. It was a joint interview, as the interviewee she was also asking the interviewer questions as well to which she got responses, so it wasn’t a one-way conversation that excludes WP:ABOUTSELF. Anyways I agree with @Isaidnoway that a burden for her fullname inclusion has been met, so I’m not sure if you can keep on reverting edits long-term made to (eventually/rightly) include her fullname on her article page. Diademchild^☥ _{🗣Sọ̀rọ̀ níbí} 20:46, 23 June 2025 (UTC) User has been topic-banned from all BLP articles and talk pages.

  Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, which is policy, says (my emphasis): Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, podcasts, and social network posts—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the person themselves.

  The interview was not published by Blue, full stop. This really isn't that complicated. We don't know what happened behind the scenes, and we don't speculate about what the subject really thinks about a source's contents. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:23, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

  No one is arguing that the interview be included in the article as a source, because we don't even need it, since her real name has been widely published in reliable sources already, but for the purposes of this discussion, it can be used to support the argument she has shared it herself, and there are no privacy concerns. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:27, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

  There are always privacy concerns regarding living people, and random podcasts don't qualify as sources linked to the subject for purposes of inferring that the subject doesn't object to their name being made public per WP:BLPPRIVACY. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:34, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

  Again, not using it for the article. It's simply to illustrate she has no problem sharing her real name. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:41, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

  That's a circular argument since it implies the podcast itself is considered to be genuine and reliable. Self-published podcasts are not reliable sources for claims about third parties, so they can't be used as evidence for what a a third party thinks and feels. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:04, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I’ve created some porn stars’ articles here and there if the notability stands and I don’t know why Wikipedia thinks porn stars are exempt from being humans with human names and human biographies rather than fictional personas. If reliable sources, in Blue’s case the likes of The Indepedent, La República and O Globo, give her birth name not in a malicious “aha!” way but in a factual reporting way… what precludes it from being included in a biography of their life? It makes no sense. Trillfendi (talk) 02:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with thinking porn stars are exempt from being humans. It has to do with minimizing potential harm to the subject, which you would know if you actually read WP:BLP. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:04, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

No one is going to harm the woman based on a fucking Wikipedia article using reliable sources, which is what I read on WP:BLP having made over 198 BLPs within this past decade…. Trillfendi (talk) 16:13, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Most of the sources listed here are not reliable; see § Discussion below. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:05, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Even taking out whoever found the birth announcement knowing that her mother has gone to the media confirming her name is Sarah Billinger, that her daughter known professionally as Bonnie Blue has her surname of Billinger, that she manages her daughter's career, and the town of Long Eaton is where they are from, under the fictional and hypothetical idea that two people could've been named Sarah Billinger in the same English town and give birth on the same day and year (14th May 1999) to a child named Tia (in this case), the fact remains that even before the Fijian Minister confirmed that the British national by the name of Tia Billinger who was doing illegal activity in his country with the screen name Bonnie Blue, there were already sources giving her real name in articles and her doing interviews alongside her family giving her name. So it's not like the girl was doxxed or has never consented to its revelation. Trillfendi (talk) 19:54, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

The subject's mother is not a public figure. I haven't seen any interviews where the subject has stated her legal name publicly. Feel free to share them here. The rest of this is simple WP:OR. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

RfC for Blue's real name

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I'm closing this early per WP:SNOW. There is clear consensus that the subject's real name should be included as it has been widely published in multiple reliable sources. TarnishedPath^talk 07:21, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

---

Should Bonnie Blue's full name (her real name) be included in the article. 20:51, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Survey (name)

• Include - per WP:BLPPRIVACY Wikipedia includes full names that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public. It has been widely published in multiple reliable sources (see discussion above for an exhaustive list), she has shared it on her Instagram account and in an interview. There is no indication that she doesn't want her real name known, and no sources have been provided in support of that argument, therefore, the standard for inclusion has been met. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:19, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• Include – Further to @Isaidnoway’s comments above, I think that there are credible, relevant and/or recent WP:ABOUTSELF/WP:BLPSELFPUB links to conversations/interviews that the subject herself has conducted (seen amongst the exhaustive list, in the discussion above), that corrobates the same consistent birthname for the subject (whether it be her firstname Tia only, or her fullname in total e.g. Tia Billinger or Tia Emma Billinger), initially first published here in May 1999, and that has since been consistently posted/published via notable websites and across various social media accounts on the Internet. The subject’s initial birthname and birthdate were rightly initially included in her article page’s description and infobox for weeks/months, until it was stubbornly challenged for no substantive reason. Even, I think in the real world, the subject Tia rightly understands that it’s probably too late to not want her real birthname known, so there has long been no subsequent indication that she doesn’t want her real name known. Therefore, the standard for her birthname inclusion has been met in my opinion as well. — Diademchild^☥ _{🗣Sọ̀rọ̀ níbí} 22:05, 23 June 2025 (UTC) User has been topic-banned from all BLP articles and talk pages.
• Include and a swift close per Isaidnoway. Reviewing the RFCBEFORE, I don't see a logical argument for exclusion. Nemov (talk) 12:54, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

  • Include - Agree with all previous points/policies. Looks like a swift close. If the subject of the topic doesnt seem to show any indication that they want their actual name to remain unknown and off the record, we have no real reason not to include.

  MaximusEditor (talk) 20:09, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

• Include per the BBC, The Guardian, and Sky News. Trillfendi (talk) 02:07, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
• Include Widely published in multiple reliable sources.--Launchballer 10:54, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
• Exclude per WP:BLPNAME since the subject themselves has attempted to conceal their name by using a pseudonym; the name is only mentioned in passing in news articles and adds no valuable context for the reader; see § Discussion for more detailed arguments & analysis of sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:35, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

  Since Blue has disclosed their name on their TikTok account, I've struck a portion of the above. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:13, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

• Include per the others, I see no valid reason to exclude it. M.Bitton (talk) 22:57, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
• Include Widely published in RS per the others above. Some1 (talk) 00:10, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
• Include and a swift close per Isaidnoway and Diademchild. GhulamIslam (talk) 21:10, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Discussion (name)

See the above discussion for WP:RFCBEFORE. There are also multiple reliable sources listed above as well. 20:51, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Most of the sources listed above are human interest reporting & are considered less reliable than straight news coverage; see below. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:49, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

So far, arguments for inclusion of the subject's legal name can be summed up as "the name is allowed because it is published in reliable sources and the subject has not objected". However, just because something is allowed doesn't mean it should be included, and most of the sources presented are not reliable (see list below). Nothing in WP:BLPPRIVACY says we need a source from the subject explicitly objecting to their name being included in order to form a consensus that inclusion of the name does not meaningfully improve the article. The presumption in favor of privacy should mean that we err on the side of excluding personal identifying information.

Per WP:BLPNAME, When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. The subject goes by a pseudonym and has never published their full legal name online anywhere as far as I'm aware. Therefore, their name has been intentionally concealed. According to the current sources, everything the subject has done to become notable has been done using her pseudonym, so there is no significant loss of context in using the pseudonym exclusively in the article.

BLPNAME also advises against giving too much weight to the brief appearance of names in news stories, which includes virtually all the examples cited so far (see list below). Most of the available sources on the subject are low-quality clickbait and sensationalist gossip owing to the subject's occupation as an OnlyFans creator. Virtually all the available sources are examples of human interest reporting, which is less reliable than straight news per WP:NEWSORG. That's not a reason to lower Wikipedia's standards for privacy of living persons.

WP:BLPSELFPUB only applies to sources published by the subject themselves, of which none have been presented that include the subject's legal name (including Instagram; see below). WP:ABOUTSELF does not apply to podcast interviews, which should never be used for claims about living people unless published by the subject themselves per WP:BLPSPS.

Going through the sources from the above discussion one by one:

• The Spectator: the magazine primarily consists of opinion essays (of which this is one), which are not reliable for factual claims per WP:RSEDITORIAL; the subject's name appears only once in parentheses near the start of the essay
• South China Morning Post: mostly consists of recycled content from other sources including Cosmopolitan along with podcasts and tabloids such as The Daily Mail and The Sun, while also citing anonymous friends and classmates, which is a red flag per WP:BLPGOSSIP; as part of their "Style" section, it's an obvious example of human interest reporting
• BBC News: the subject's name is mentioned only once in passing near the end of the article, which is not primarily about the person known as Bonnie Blue, instead focusing on a gambling website that was investigated for using a video of Blue in an advertisement; articles should cite sources focused on the topic at hand per WP:RSCONTEXT
• The Telegraph (12 February): not primarily about the subject; see BBC News above
• The Telegraph (19 January): not primarily about the subject, name appears only once in passing
• Australian Financial Review: not primarily about the subject
• The Independent: opinion essay, name appears only once in passing
• Broadcast: uses real name and pseudonym more or less interchangeably, does not go into any detail on family or private life
• El Imparcial (ProQuest 3170738415): name appears only once in passing, along with the name of subject's mother, Sarah Billinger (who is not a public figure); no reason to cite when similar English-language sources are available per WP:NONENG
• Publimetro (ProQuest 3168982860): speculation and gossip about possible pregnancy, name appears only once in passing; no reason to cite when similar English-language sources are available
• La República (ProQuest 3169962760): name appears only once in passing; no reason to cite when similar English-language sources are available
• Ámbito Financiero (ProQuest 3156324915): name appears only once in passing; no reason to cite when similar English-language sources are available
• O Globo (ProQuest 3130604796): name appears only once in passing; no reason to cite when similar English-language sources are available
• Hindustan Times: recycled social media & tabloid content; questionable source per WP:NEWSORGINDIA
• E! Online: recycled social media content, name appears only once in passing
• OK!: recycled social media content, name appears only once in passing
• Indy100 (22 May): recycled social media content, name appears only once in passing
• Indy100 (30 January): name appears only once in passing
• Complex: name appears only once in passing
• Extra.ie: name appears only once in passing
• LA Weekly: name appears only once in passing
• Village Voice: mixture of news & opinion, name appears only once in passing
• The Standard: name appears only once in passing
• PinkNews: name appears only once in passing
• Marie Claire: name appears once in a quotation
• Newsweek: name appears only once in passing, reliability is questionable per WP:NEWSWEEK
• Bonnie_blue_xox via Instagram: caption evidently posted to social media by the subject's sister is not reliable per WP:SPS & WP:BLPSPS; "Tia" is not the subject's legal name anyway
• Stand Out TV interview via YouTube: self-published podcast, not reliable per WP:BLPSPS; the argument that the subject hasn't intentionally concealed her name because it's mentioned here relies on the podcast itself being a reliable source; we also don't know what went on behind the scenes and so can't infer the subject's consent to the name being made public
• Birth announcement via the Long Eaton Advertiser: no independent verification that this is the same person as the subject of the article; inferring as much is prohibited original research
• LinkedIn: no independent verification that this is the same person; see previous

—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:35, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

The subject has posted her own name on her Instagram account:

As you may have seen, Tia has been arrested. We still don’t have clarity on the situation but will keep you all in the loop as soon as we know. Thanks for all of the support in the last 24 hours. This isn’t something we wanted to get out but it seems there is no privacy for her anymore. Your’s sincerely Tia’s Sister

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DJ64uLysf88/?hl=en

There is no good reason to believe that the post was actually by the subject's sister when the subject was never arrested; it was a publicity stunt for social media engagement and to advertise a sexually explicit film set in a prison. GhulamIslam (talk) 11:40, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

In that case there's no reason to believe anything in the post is authentic, including the name. "Tia" is not even a legal name to begin with. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Except it isn't just her post that uses the name, as you yourself have demonstrated by providing a plethora of sources that do the same. GhulamIslam (talk) 14:47, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Once again, "Tia" is not a legal name. There's nothing useful to be gleaned from this social media post. If it were Madonna instead of Bonnie Blue, we wouldn't be drawing any conclusions about the subject's legal name from an instance of her first name being used publicly. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:00, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

The fact that the name appears in multiple sources, even if it "appears only once in passing", is more the reason why the name should be included in this article. Some1 (talk) 12:16, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I disagree, for WP:BLPNAME reasons given above: the subject has chosen to intentionally conceal their legal name by using a pseudonym; there's no significant loss of context in omitting their legal name; significant weight should not be given to brief appearance of names in news stories. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:59, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

This female subject hasn’t concealed her birth/legal name using/with a (hidden/secret) pseudonym, but she has done so by using a (professional) stage name for her fans to adopt, just exactly like how every other entertainer/performer with a stage name, whether it be in the arts, entertainment or media, would be expected to. It’s just a means of any public figure separating working life from leisure/non-working life. But undoubtedly, if the perfomer’s family member or friend were to see them at home or in public (away from their day job), they would likely call them by their birth/legal name and not by their unwarranted/warranted stage name.

Take for example, the female entertainer/rapper Cardi B. That’s her (professional) stage name for her fans to adopt. But she hasn’t ever concealed her birth/legal name, so we cannot assume she has ever sought privacy, especially when reliable sources also mention her birth/legal name once in passing too. In the same way, this female subject hasn’t ever concealed her birth/legal name, so we cannot assume she has ever sought privacy as well.

So if you’re somehow thinking/saying that this female subject has chosen to intentionally conceal their birth/legal name, that would be like assuming/saying that every other famous and/or non-famous performer in the arts, entertainment or media (with a stage name), has deliberately chosen to do the same thing as well? That false assumption doesn’t really hold any basis. And even, those reliable sources above don’t necessarily need to mention the female subject’s birth/legal name more than once, because they are always likely referring to the subject’s actions and antics whilst she/they is/are on the job, and not when she/they is/are off-work or in/on an out-of-work context/situation. — Diademchild^☥ _{🗣Sọ̀rọ̀ níbí} 14:32, 27 June 2025 (UTC) User has been topic-banned from all BLP articles and talk pages.

Plenty of entertainers do not use a pseudonym (Taylor Swift, anyone?), so I'm not sure where that comparison is coming from. What would qualify as intentionally concealing one's name in your opinion, if not using a pseudonym? Are you suggesting that reliable sources would use different names for the same person in different contexts? I've never seen any high-quality sources do that. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

For clarity, I think we could assume that a public figure intentionally concealing one’s name means purposefully taking steps to obscure or prevent others from identifying them by their real/legal/widely-recognized name.

So, if this female subject was using different aliases in different circles to avoid detection or association; or consistently omitting her name during interviews/podcasts; or using a nickname of her name that isn’t commonly connected to her identity, or even providing misleading or fake credentials that obscure her actual name or background, then you could have a case. But I think it’s safe to boldly say, that we all know that she isn’t doing any of that.

However, any reliable source when referring to a public figure or entertainer, can/may make use of their name, title or stage name interchangeably (for example, “Dr. Dre” and “Andre Rommell Young” being the same person, though potentially cited differently in the media versus legal documents).

In that case, the variation isn’t about hiding any identity, but just a product of context, culture, or convention. Reliable sources usually acknowledge, clarify or expect us to know that the names used refer to the same individual. Therefore it mostly comes down to intent and transparency. If the subject was intentionally using different names to obscure her identity, that’s concealment. But if the use of different names is/are transparent, explainable, or commonly known, it’s not concealment. Diademchild^☥ _{🗣Sọ̀rọ̀ níbí} 20:28, 27 June 2025 (UTC) User has been topic-banned from all BLP articles and talk pages.

You're still arguing for the subject having disclosed her name via other peoples' podcasts, which I've already explained are not reliable sources unless published by the subject themselves. Therefore we can't draw any conclusions from those podcast appearances. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:49, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Well then, I guess it’s fair to say that we can agree to disagree with our conflicting viewpoints and perhaps move on? Afterall, I can commend your relative headstrongness in this RfC debate though, considering you’re likely to remain the only one who voted to exclude in the survey above. I don’t even think your viewpoints are completely wrong, I just think they’re not strongly convincing enough to overide the consensus, because with all the evidence of reliable sources provided in the exhaustive list above, the majority (if not nearly 99%) of us on here as an online community, are likely to agree with a correct swift close upon coming across this RfC survey. As a result, I’m not sure if there’s even anything else I or any other user/editor can say to persuade you, because I honestly don’t know/see where you’re going with what other editors/users may deem as your filibustering? So at this point, I feel like other participants in this RfC may agree that we’re seemingly beating a dead horse for now. However, as @Some1 rightly suggested elsewhere, if you believe that BLPs should never include any entertainer/performer’s birthname or birthdate ever (as/since they currently do), you could debate that separately by raising a complaint here. — Diademchild^☥ _{🗣Sọ̀rọ̀ níbí} 23:37, 27 June 2025 (UTC) User has been topic-banned from all BLP articles and talk pages.

WP:BLPNAME applies to individuals like the subject's family members. I disagree that it applies in this case to the subject herself. And I agree with Diademchild's well reasoned arguments above that using a stage name for professional purposes is different than intentionally concealing one's name for privacy reasons. Some1 (talk) 14:37, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

BLPNAME refers to names that have been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations. What other occupations might the policy be referring to if not pornographic film performer? Pornographic film actresses have been exposed to stalking and harassment after their legal names were published on Wikipedia, which seems like exactly the type of outcome this policy was created to avoid. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Not to discredit the claim in that web source, but that particular website isn’t a reliable source, coincidentally per your stance regarding the (majority of the) references produced/given above in the exhaustive list. So, would it be possible to actually find that exact information published via a reliable source? Because if we were going by your previous logic, then anyone can make up any claim for harrassment, so we would have to “err on the side of caution”, about information published through that particular unreliable source. — Diademchild^☥ _{🗣Sọ̀rọ̀ níbí} 20:41, 27 June 2025 (UTC) User has been topic-banned from all BLP articles and talk pages.

We don't need a reliable source to decide to omit a given piece of information. However, WP:JEZEBEL is listed as a "biased or opinionated" source, not an unreliable source. It's not as though people using Wikipedia for purposes of stalking and/or harassing women is an extraordinary claim. It happens to Wikipedia's own editors, for crying out loud. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I think the key word here in BLPNAME is private individual. According to this article, Joe Price of Complex stated that there seemed to be an "OnlyFans arms race" between Blue ... to see who could go viral most often; she also has appearances on podcasts, TV programs, etc. It doesn't seem like those activities are what a "private" individual who's trying to stay away from the limelight would do. Anyway, I came here from WP:RFC/All and don't find the arguments to exclude the name convincing. If editors find your arguments convincing, then they'll !vote to Exclude above. If you believe that BLPs should never include pornographic film performers' birth names ever, I suggest taking that to the talk page of WP:BLP. Some1 (talk) 21:27, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Source analysis

Source analysis

These are nine sources that have community consensus as being generally reliable. There is no stipulation in WP:BLPPRIVACY that mandates a subject's real name be more than just a passing mention in a reliable source; but only that the full name be widely published in reliable sources, and that standard has been overwhelmingly met. And the context in which her real name is used in the sources is to merely inform readers of what her real name is, nothing more, nothing less. Some of the sources also give a passing mention of where she was born, where she grew up, where she attended school, how old she is, or the year she was born, for the same contextual reason, to inform their readers of basic biographical details. And it is certainly not uncommon for editors to use this basic biographical information (passing mentions), found in reliable sources to flesh out a biography section for the subject, as evidenced in the early life section in her article. We are also using a passing mention of her age in a source for the year(s) she was born. There are also multiple sources frequently used on Wikipedia listed above in the WP:RFCBEFORE discussion that demonstrate her real name has been widely published.
Source	Relevant text in source	Department	Reliable source status
South China Morning Post	Bonnie Blue, whose real name is Tia Billinger	Style/Entertainment	Generally reliable
BBC	In January, Bonnie Blue – whose real name is Tia Billinger	News	Generally reliable
The Daily Telegraph	Bonnie Blue – real name Tia Billinger	Business	Generally reliable
The Independent	Blue, whose real name is Tia Billinger	Lifestyle	Generally reliable
PinkNews	Bonnie Blue, who was born Tia Billinger in 1999.	Celebrity	Generally reliable
The Village Voice	The OnlyFans star, whose real name is Tia Billinger	Entrepreneurs	Generally reliable
Sky News	It is unclear whether Bonnie Blue - whose real name is Tia Billinger	Money	Generally reliable
Vulture	Bonnie Blue, 26, real name Tia Billinger	Article	Generally reliable
The Guardian	Bonnie Blue – whose real name is Tia Billinger	Business	Generally reliable
Public videos
In this interview, she shares her real name while discussing being banned from Fiji, and talks about doing a gang-bang with her deportation papers she was given by the Fiji government, and when they got all mushy, she stuffed them into her pussy. This interview obviously can not be used as a source in the article, but it can be used here on the talk page to illustrate that she has shared her real name in a public interview that has 1.2 million views. In this TikTok video, she says: My name is Tia Billinger, you know me as Bonnie Blue, and I'm facing eighteen years for life, but I've always wanted that. Again, this video obviously can not be used as a source in the article, but can be used here to illustrate she has no problem sharing her real name with the public. So we can rule out that her decision to use a stage name, was because she wanted to conceal her real name. Additionally, there is no reasonable expectation that she has privacy concerns about her real name being in the public realm, when she is willingly sharing her real name. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:12, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

The Village Voice is very unlikely to be reliable for this purpose per my rationale at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Village Voice (which probably technically counts as CANVASSing but an RSP entry that misleading really can't wait). Otherwise, this.--Launchballer 08:01, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

If and when it is updated at RSP, I will strike it. According to ZeroGPT, this particular article linked to is "human written". Thanks, appreciate the info though. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:20, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for providing these sources, especially the YouTube and TikTok videos in which she herself has shared her name to the public. I've went ahead and updated the article since this RfC is WP:SNOWING. Some1 (talk) 11:53, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Reliability depends on context. The South China Morning Post article should not be treated as reliable since it consists of recycled tabloid fluff & claims from anonymous sources. The essay in The Independent is labeled "Comment", meaning it's an opinion piece and not reliable for factual claims.

Also, informing readers of basic biographical details is not "context". Context means the situation in which something occurs that can help explain it. Adding Blue's legal name explains nothing, since everything notable about her has been done under a pseudonym. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:23, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Adding Blue's legal name explains nothing

Wow, talk about an oxymoron, adding her legal name explains what her legal name is. Of course her notability derives from Bonnie Blue, or we wouldn't even have an article on her to begin with. And adding biographical details has always been an element of contextualization in an encyclopedia, because it aids in helping readers have a better understanding of the subject. It's also the same for journalism, biographical information helps readers understand the experiences and background of the person they are reporting on in the article, and we depend on reliable sources to provide that context.

Is Mark Sinclair or Margaret Mary Emily Anne Hyra notable, nope, but Vin Diesel and Meg Ryan are. It's the same for any actor who uses a stage name, adding their legal name to their bio explains what their legal name is. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:27, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Subject's preferences

I spotted this discussion and remembered a November 2024 interview by The News Movement where she had a clear preference at the time.
Clodagh Griffin: I thought that stuff about your actual name has now come out online. I don't know if you've seen that, but how do you feel about it?
Bonnie Blue: Yes, it's not ideal, and I'd prefer it not to. But at the same time I knew it was going to happen at some point. I just never expected this to have been the starting point for it. But the more people that are obsessed with me, the more it drives traffic. My name was never hidden for any other reason other than this was a stage name. I googled stage names, this is the name I chose, this is the name I've gone by. There's nothing bad from my past and there's nothing I'm trying to hide.
--Noahnose (talk) 14:50, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing; this disproves the argument above that "the subject has chosen to intentionally conceal their legal name by using a pseudonym". The YouTube video interview and her own TikTok video (where she shares her real name with the public) are from these past two months, so we know her stance on this now. Some1 (talk) 15:03, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

That's just two out of many videos where she has shared her real name, from what I've seen, she doesn't mind sharing intimate and personal details about her life whatsoever. She's talked about where she used to live, her former job, went to school, guys she fucked, her ex-husband, her mum and stepdad, and everything else, including the kitchen sink. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:05, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

None of that that is especially relevant, especially the self-published podcast interviews produced by others, as I stated above. However, this TikTok video seems to satisfy the sources linked to the subject stipulation under WP:BLPPRIVACY. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:56, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: Blue's full DOB

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I'm closing this early per WP:SNOW. There is clear consensus that including the subject's full date of birth in the article is not original research as it is a routine calculation. I'll leave it to editors to implement consensus. TarnishedPath^talk 00:57, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

---

Should Bonnie Blue's full date of birth be included in the article? 00:07, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Survey (RfC: Blue's full DOB)

• Include – Alright, per WP:ABOUTSELF/WP:BLPSELFPUB, this female subject has already previously confirmed that she is/was indeed born on 14th May, as seen/confirmed via the date of when she published this Instagram post here, which unsurprisingly substantiates or correlates with the birthday (i.e. of “born 14 May” seen) published in/on her birth announcement here. So undoubtedly we already know one part of her legal birthdate being “14 May”, so the question is what calendar year was she born in? Well, if she turned aged 25 in May 2024, as she demurely claimed in this livestreamed podcast here in the 12:47–13:05 minute mark, then are we really/deliberately avoiding/intercepting a routine calculation, to indeed confirm that this authentic birth announcement is correct? Because based on any swift routine calculations made, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that she is/was indeed born on 14th May 1999. —Diademchild^☥ _{🗣Sọ̀rọ̀ níbí} 00:38, 29 June 2025 (UTC) User has been topic-banned from all BLP articles and talk pages.
• Exclude per WP:DOB. Blue's full date of birth has neither been widely published by reliable sources nor the subject herself. Therefore we can't reasonably infer that the subject does not object to their full date of birth being made public. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:32, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
• Include Routine calculations are explicitly not original research, so "original research must not be used to extrapolate the date of birth" does not apply.--Launchballer 01:33, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
• Include, simple arithmetic is not original research. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:56, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

  Question: The RfC asks about her full DOB (May 14, 1999). Is it considered WP:OR/SYNTH to use May 14 from her Instagram birthday post and combine it with 1999 from the YouTube video where Blue herself said she recently turned 25 in May 2024, to get a full DOB of May 14, 1999? Some1 (talk) 02:23, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

  Pink News reports her year of birth as 1999, and it is WP:GREL, so we wouldn't actually need the YouTube vid. Isaidnoway (talk) 05:55, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks, the more sources the better. But I'm still wondering though, is it OR/SYNTH to put the birth month and day from one source with the birth year from another source to come up with a full DOB? Three !votes so far are about simple arithmetic/routine calculations, which is only applicable to the birth year, but what about putting two sources together to come up with a full DOB? Some1 (talk) 12:48, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

  It is very common for articles to combine together material from different sources. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:47, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

• Include (summoned by bot) Routine calculations are explicitly not original research, so "original research must not be used to extrapolate the date of birth" does not apply Pincrete (talk) 07:05, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
• Include (summoned by bot) WP:DOB allows inclusion on the basis of self-published media if "there is no reason to doubt it." Coretheapple (talk) 13:43, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
• Include (summoned by bot) Include for the reasons already cited in the votes above. Support a quick close on this one. Nemov (talk) 21:09, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
• Weak include. My metric for this question is usually just whether the person is a public figure. For porn stars—unlike other actresses—I would presume some extra level of privacy. But because her real name is public (per the article), I don’t see such relative caution being taken on her end. — HTGS (talk) 02:18, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

  Of course, per WP:DOB, if her birth year is readily calculable, we should include that either way. — HTGS (talk) 02:23, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

• Include per Launchballer and Seraphimblade. They are both correct, simple arithmetic is not original research. And the subject does not shy away from publicity, and giving personal details about her life, like her age and real name, as it has already been demonstrated. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:13, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
• Include I dislike CALC when it comes to DOB issues, as if you have to calculate date how widely published can it be. However in this case the subject has indicated both their birth year and date, so I don't see that as applying. The year being backed up by Pink News also adds weight for inclusion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:27, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Discussion (RfC: Blue's full DOB)

Per WP:DOB, A 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. This isn't the same as the subject posting a birthday message minus their age. The one allows routine calculation of the subject's full date of birth without any additional information, while the other does not. Amateur sleuthing to calculate the likely year of birth from one source in order to combine it with the subject's birthday from a different source seems to conflict with WP:DOB in that original research must not be used to extrapolate the date of birth.

We should treat primary sources like this birth announcement in a local paper with caution per WP:BLPPRIMARY. There's been no independent verification by reliable sources that it refers to the subject of this article, so using it here would be WP:SYNTH regardless of what any rocket scientist thinks. Wikipedia articles are based on published, reliable sources that directly and explicitly support the material in question, not what random Wikipedia users think is unsurprising. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:59, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

bonnie-blue -onlyfans-ban- -petting-zoo-

https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/bonnie-blue-after-onlyfans-ban-and-petting-zoo-cancellation-whats-next/

‘tied up’ inside a glass box ‘ready to be used.’

https://extra.ie/2025/06/14/entertainment/bonnie-blue-only-fans-banned

With 2,000 Men in 1 Day

https://okmagazine.com/p/bonnie-blue-banned-onlyfans-permanent-extreme-content-sleep-2000-men/

permanently banned from Nottingham Forest stadium

https://www.villagevoice.com/bonnie-blue-booted-from-onlyfans/

Piñanana (talk) 15:04, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

What is the change you are requesting? TarnishedPath^talk 07:26, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Interview with The Times

I’m not well‑versed in how to submit an edit request, but there’s a new article to mine from The Times that’s much more comprehensive than the Wiki page at present: https://web.archive.org/web/20250726142038/https://www.thetimes.com/life-style/sex-relationships/article/bonnie-blue-interview-1000-men-normalisation-porn-dd6rcq8gq
A recurring theme is how Billinger commodifies sexual violence against women.
Incidentally, the term ‘gangbang’ seems to have been omitted from this page, yet it’s used multiple times in sources (such as The Times), including by Billinger herself. 2A02:C7C:E4F8:F800:E5FD:4ABB:958B:7E6C (talk) 23:33, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

With her toughness, drive, looks and engaging personality, Tia reminds me of the flinty young women who win The Apprentice. This interview is written as an opinion piece and is therefore not reliable for factual claims or criticism of a living person. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:11, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 30 July 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Speedy close as not moved. Too soon to repeat this discussion after an RM last month. Feel free to try again in a year or so. (closed by non-admin page mover) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:54, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

---

Bonnie Blue (actress) → Bonnie Blue – There are no other pages on Wikipedia simply titled "Bonnie Blue", with this being the page most users view and/or search for. 2A00:23C8:30B0:3901:5821:F73E:FC8F:653B (talk) 10:47, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - per the same reasons we went through a month ago. Nothing has changed. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:17, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Close no evidence presented that anything has changed over the past month—blindlynx 16:34, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Date of birth

Allegedly (BLP violation removed) 1999, but I cannot find a more reliable source than her IMDb and, per Wikipedia:Citing IMDb, it's not a reliable source for BLP as most actor info is user-submitted.

If anyone can find a better source for her birthday, appreciate it. Thanks! ElectronicsForDogs (talk) 21:49, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

her middle name is [redacted]

see this video

youtu.*be/CuDZxnux2YU?*

delete the * Mencarikebenaran (talk) 02:03, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

We know it is, but we need reliable sources. Trillfendi (talk) 07:14, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Antara News is state-owned media, not a reliable source generally, and not an independent source in this case. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:51, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2025

imporisonment is misspelled, should be imprisonment ~2025-39724-63 (talk) 04:52, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done Day Creature (talk) 05:13, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

December 2025 edits

Regarding the recent incident in Bali, there's no reason to prefer Indonesian sources for events in Indonesia anymore than we would prefer North Korean sources for events in that country. Instead we should use sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy per WP:SOURCE.

We also prefer English-language sources per WP:NONENG, especially compared to detik.com (which is little more than churnalism) and Media Indonesia (which is merely recycled content from WP:NYPOST and WP:THESUN).

The recent edits which I reverted also added tabloid news in the form of Hull Daily Mail (which appears to have since been deleted) while removing the generally reliable source WP:THEINDEPENDENT. All of which resulted in an extremely biased and sensationalistic presentation unsuitable for a BLP. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:08, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Sorry I don't know who 'we' is, and your reference to North Korea is frankly ludicrous. I have removed the Media Indonesia source and restored The Independent article. Your characterisation of this paragraph as "extremely biased and sensationalistic" is absolutely absurd, especially given the subject matter. Could you identify the part you think is "extremely biased and sensationalistic"?

"In December 2025, she was arrested in Indonesia and her Suzuki Carry "Bonnie Blue's Bangbus" seized. Fourteen Australian male tourists widely described as "Barely Legal Schoolies", aged between 19 and 40, were initially arrested but later had their status changed to witnesses, while Blue and her team of two British and one Australian staff remain under investigation pending a decision on deportation or prosecution. Blue is suspected of violating Indonesian immigration, pornography and electronic transaction law." Sumbuddi (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes I came here from the BLP noticeboard page. Daily Mail is not considered a reliable source per the RS noticeboard. In addition for BLP pages generally speaking you need even higher quality sources than those deemed "acceptable" cfor non-living persons pages so daily mail couldn't be used here in any context. So @Sangdeboeuf appears to be in the right for removing it. I am aware it's extremely frustrating @Sumbuddi. It looks like @Sumbuddi you are looking for reliable sources pertaining to an Indonesian immigration dispute with Blue? I may be able to do some searches--the other question would be does it qualify as WP:DUE on this page--aka is there enough WP:SIGCOV of the incident involving Blue to warrant page addition. Agnieszka653 (talk) 19:20, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you said, but WP:SIGCOV if off-topic, I think you're looking for something like WP:PROPORTION. Just because something is online, it doesn't necessarily fit in a WP-article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:08, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Ah--got it. Thank you for the correction I'll read up on WP:PROPORTION. Thanks. Agnieszka653 (talk) 20:20, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi, the Daily Mail was never in the article. It was the "Hull Daily Mail", which is a local newspaper, with no connection of any kind to "The Daily Mail". I have in any case already removed the link to "Hull Daily Mail" to avoid further unnecessary confusion.

This is not purely an "immigration dispute", but a wider legal one. I still have no idea what the BLP concern is supposed to be here - it is clear that Miss Blue welcomes controversy for publicity reasons and there does not seem to be any dispute about the facts either. The latest news is that there will be a further hearing this week. Sumbuddi (talk) 20:58, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Hmmm @Sumbuddi found your article which was posted on the Hull Daily Mail three days ago but seems to have been removed from the site since (tried clicking on it got a 404 "this page was removed" error) as for Hull Daily Mail it's not on the RS/Perennial Sources list here: [] which isn't necessarily a bad thing--but if that's the case the next best place is to search to see if it was ever mentioned at all on the RS noticeboard. Which I did--but mostly it brings up "Daily Mail" (for obvious reasons) here: [] So anyway I did a quick search for "Bonnie Blue Indonesia" and can dump what I found to see if it's of any use to anyone: Newsweek did cover the arrest but Newsweek is generally discouraged from BLP (but use your own judgement): [] The London Evening Standard covered it: [] but on the RS list it's yellow and says "no consensus on reliability" so you can get dinged for that on BLP pages. The New York Post also covered it--but unfortunately they are red. I do think given the situation--up to 15 years in Indonesian prison is a pretty serious situation more outlets that are deemed "green" may cover this soon--but you may want to wait it out in the mean time. Agnieszka653 (talk) 21:59, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

It is clear that Miss Blue welcomes controversy for publicity reasons. So what? Wikipedia is not a tabloid or gossip site. Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy, regardless of users' personal feelings about them or their chosen occupation.

Who cares that her vehicle was a Suzuki Carry "Bonnie Blue's Bangbus", or that the other arrestees were described as Barely Legal Schoolies? This kind of trivial and sensationalistic detail does not belong in an encyclopedia. None of the sources I have looked at even mention the phrase "Barely Legal Schoolies" or the make/model of the vehicle, which means this information was either taken from the deleted Hull Daily Mail article or is simply original research.

The entire list of suspected crimes (violating Indonesian immigration, pornography and electronic transaction law) also goes against the policy on living people who are public figures unless multiple, reliable (English-language) third party sources have discussed each of them in detail. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:23, 11 December 2025 (UTC) edited 08:49, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

"English-language" is not a WP-criteria here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:22, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:NONENG, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they are available and of equal quality and relevance. In this case the available English-language sources are certainly of better quality for the reasons stated above (churnalism and recycling of tabloid content). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:55, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

You seem like a tedious ruleslawyer so I'll leave you to edit 'your page' in peace. Have fun!Sumbuddi (talk) 12:17, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Like it or not. "rules lawyering" is how you push for these kind of edits about living people. Trade (talk) 12:21, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

"Blue has attracted controversy for the age of the male participants in her videos (many as young as 18)"

The way this is worded in Wikivoice makes it sound as if the claim that the participants were unable or incapable of giving consent was a fact Trade (talk) 12:03, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

I added the phrase recruited to perform [in her videos]. Hopefully that shifts the emphasis to the recruitment and not the participants themselves. The article doesn't state or imply the young men were unable to consent. Nonetheless, many people have indeed questioned whether consent could be fully given, per Marie Claire, SBS News, Glamour, and Cosmopolitan, among other less reliable sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:58, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Sectioning

@Sangdeboeuf: MOS:OVERSECTION says "Very short sections and subsections clutter an article with headings and inhibit the flow of the prose." I think a standalone section for three sentences (less than two lines on my monitor) introduces clutter.--Launchballer 10:21, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

It's not ideal, but it's a more logical page organization. Having a single section for Early life and stunts combines disparate material inelegantly under one heading IMO. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:19, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure 'early life' is disparate with the beginning of her career, but you're right about the rest and I've moved that into chronological order.--Launchballer 02:29, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Physical impossibility?

"Blue .. claimed to have had sex with 1,057 men in 12 hours." Now 12 hours is 720 minutes. Can we really believe that it's physically possible for one woman to have sex with different men at a rate of more than one a minute over such an extended period? Even if we go for 24 hours it still seems incredible - and what about food, drink, toilet breaks, etc.? I think one of the reports talked about men queueing for 3-minute sessions, which is maybe a bit more reasonable? rossb (talk) 16:44, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

That's why we attribute. The Tab is not a reliable source but it claimed in January that groups of five had two minutes, single men had between 30 and 45 seconds, and Blue had two three-minute breaks. (By the way, Sparxxx's 919 record may very well be wrong; Adult Industry News reported in December 1999 that Sabrina Johnson set a record of 1025.)--Launchballer 17:58, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Recent edits January 2026

@Sangdeboeuf: I used accurate edit summaries on every single edit I made yesterday. Which bits do you think were not adequately explained?--Launchballer 06:30, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

You removed an entire paragraph which read:

Blue claims to have had sex with married men who were unsatisfied with their spouses, and has made several podcast appearances in which she blamed women for their partners' infidelity; many viewers expressed concern that Blue's comments were misogynistic and contributed to sexual objectification of women. [...] Blue has also been accused of manipulating young men into performing sex on camera and of not considering the long-term impact on such men. Blue remarked in an interview with Cosmopolitan that it was "stupid" to question whether the young men in her videos understood the consequences, saying "we've got no problem sending 18-year-olds to war".

It's unclear to me how any of the above is either a tautology or WP:V failure as you claimed.

You also removed the sentence:

Blue was denied entry to Australia, where she had announced she was seeking "barely legal" 18-year-old male volunteers to film sexual content during schoolies week in November 2024

along with one of the cited references, with the vague explanation "dealt with Australia above", which does not explain why this specific information was removed and not just reorganized.

You removed a large chunk of text with the explanation "trim massive violations of WP:COATRACK, WP:NPOV, and WP:SUMMARY". I don't have a problem with this per se; however, at the same time you added the sentence Blue spent much of late 2025 on tour, as if this were merely routine information and not promotional in any way.

A minor nitpick, but the statement The Daily Telegraph wrote that it was unclear whether Blue was involved in creating the advertisements is clunky; newspapers do not write things, they are where things are written by human authors. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:05, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

References

Not quite sure how any of the above justifies throwing out the whole editing session and have put the rest back. To take your concerns point by point:

• "Blue [...] infidelity" - I put this article into chronological order and moved these into where they belonged. This was still there.
• "Many [...] such men" - That she was criticised remained in the article; I readded the specific allegations.
• "Blue [...] war" - This would need summarising anyway, but what that would need summarising to is already in the other Cosmopolitan piece, so this is unnecessary.
• "Blue [...] 2024" - I'd moved the Australia stuff to earlier as The Times gave me the impression that's where it went, although I've since discovered it was almost certainly referring to an additional trip in 2023. I've put this sentence back in for now, although this needs more research.
• "Blue [...] tour" - Trimmed this for now, although she did receive significant criticism for this and that's worth mentioning. This also needs more research.
• "The [...] wrote" - added author.--Launchballer 08:33, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Actress?

She is not an actress, why is this added behind her name? ~2026-20785-0 (talk) 15:43, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Pornographic actresses are still actresses. There were discussions requesting that this be moved to "Bonnie Blue" on 3 June 2025 and 30 July 2025 and both times consensus was to not move. See also Wikipedia:Disambiguation.--Launchballer 16:31, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Peer review

Bonnie Blue (actress)

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to make this a featured article. Thanks, Launchballer 23:23, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't know much about this person apart from reading a newspaper article some time ago. I will make a few suggestions about the page's content.

Life and Career

• "took part in the British street dance championships with her sister in 2015" - as there doesn't seem to be an article on this specific event I would suggest linking street dance

Linked.

• "five years working as a finance recruiter for the National Health Service (NHS)" I looked up this job and it didn't seem very health related. Could it be linked? Presumably she was working for National Health Service (England).

Changed link and reworded.

• "before marrying her partner at a registry office in February 2022" - I would add a link to Register office (United Kingdom).

Linked.

• "became an escort" - I would suggest linking Call girl given it is a bit of euphemism

Linked.

• "After being branded a predator by a tabloid" - I would suggest giving the name of the tabloid if it is available. Was the concern that she was promoting pornography to young people?

According to the source, "She’d heard about Schoolies, a celebration at the end of Australian high-school exams, and went there to distribute business cards with a QR code to her OnlyFans page. She claims she was only musing whether to sleep with the boys when the Daily Mail ran a story calling her a sexual predator. So she leant into the publicity and offered herself free to 18-year-olds who would consent to be filmed, and then posted their brief encounters online."

• "she began recruiting men over the age of 18 to have sex with" - This feels like it should be a separate sentence.

Rearranged.

• "including 122 students at spring break in Cancún in March 2024 and 150 students at freshers' week in Derby and Nottingham in September 2024" - Had she immigrated back to the UK by this point?

The only source I could find to that effect said that Blue spent two years in Australia. In other words, probably, but the sources don't make it explicit.

• "to request censorship of the advert for using sex to promote gambling to young people." Make clear if the video was linked to the company?

I already did, I say "after being posted by an account claiming to be affiliated with the company" earlier in the sentence.

I would suggest explicitly stating if the claim was correct or incorrect.--Llewee (talk) 00:24, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

The closest I could was find was 'not posted by an official Stake account', so added that.

• "Blue's co-stars filmed in groups," I think "were" should be added before filmed.

Both seem fine to me, but changed anyway.

• "recruitment of multiple young-looking female content creators for a sex education lesson" - I think this could do with more context.

I think I've added what you meant, please advise.

So I take it that it was a pornographic film based on a fictional sex education lesson? I would suggest stating that explicitly.--Llewee (talk) 00:31, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

It was, according to The Guardian, "footage of (Blue) in a classroom preparing to film an orgy with a group of models dressed in school uniform". I've added that.

• "she and at least 17 other men" - I would take out "other" as she obviously wasn't a man.

Wow, that's a BLP violation and a half. Cut.

• "outside that city's embassy of Indonesia" slightly odd wording as London isn't a country, I would suggest suggest saying either the Indonesian embassy in London or the Indonesian embassy in the United Kingdom.

Changed to the latter.

• "In February 2026, she claimed to have had unprotected sex with about 400 men in one day[51] and to be pregnant,[52] following which a Twitter account parodying The Maury Show went viral after asking to not be tagged.[53]" - The link isn't explained here. Llewee (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Added. I'm never quite sure which are the appropriate dashes to use - please advise.

It is not clear what the link is between the show and her claims about being pregnant or sleeping with 400 men. Had the show reported on the claims?--Llewee (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

No, fans were tagging the account, prompting it to ask that they not. I've expanded this to make it clearer.

I believe I've addressed the above.--Launchballer 21:34, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Personal life and artistry

• I'm not quite sure what you mean by artistry here. Are you referring to the way she performs when working?

Essentially things like inspiration and style. I've reordered some of the sentences so it goes personal life and then artistry.

General comments

• I think the article would benefit from a separate section discussing the debates around her career. You mention a lot of opinion pieces which have been written about her but could probably discuss there arguments in more detail.

Opinion pieces are primary sources; the ones that are in the article are the ones that have turned up in secondary sources.

The main point is that I think a separate section discussing the debates around her career in more detail would be helpful.--Llewee (talk) 11:09, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I've gone to split this several times, and every time I do so I find myself starting a paragraph with 'Following her world record attempt', at which point I find myself thinking 'it's best to discuss it all in one sitting'. Is there an example of what you're talking about?--Launchballer 20:26, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

• I think it might be sensible to break her pre-sex work life and career into a separate section.

That would leave a very short section for Early life, which would violate MOS:OVERSECTION.

• It's good for FA's to use academic sources as much as possible. However, I couldn't find any about this person on the Wikipedia library. It's plausible that few exist yet given her fame is so recent--Llewee (talk) 00:18, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

FAC PR sidebar

@Launchballer: I have added this to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar. Please consider reviewing other articles listed there. Since you are working towards your first successful FAC, I recommend getting a mentor who can comment in this PR. I also recommend that you review articles at WP:FAC now to build goodwill amongst the FAC reviewers and to showcase your understanding of the FA criteria. Z1720 (talk) 20:39, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Query

@Launchballer: It has been several weeks since the last comments in this PR. Are you still interested in receiving comments? If not, should this be closed and nominated at WP:FAC? Z1720 (talk) 03:33, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

I am, but I think what this needs is a mentor and I'll look for that another time, so you can close this for now.--Launchballer 03:36, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

• @Launchballer: Instructions on how to close a PR are at WP:PRG. I recommend the script. I also recommend reviewing articles at WP:FAC: this helps teach editors the FA criteria while lots of editors give feedback, and it builds goodwill amongst other reviewers, making it more likely that your article will be reviewed when nominated. Z1720 (talk) 03:40, 4 April 2026 (UTC)