Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Ongoing BLP concerns: Difference between revisions
→Ongoing WP:BLP-related concerns: Lurita Doan NPOV |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
(37 intermediate revisions by 22 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
__NOINDEX__ |
|||
{{Historical}} |
|||
Please edit the main page of the noticeboard. |
|||
{| class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" |
|||
|- |
|||
! style="background-color: #f2dfce;" | This discussion has been archived. Please do not modify it. |
|||
|- |
|||
| style="text-align:center; font-style:italic;" | The following is an archived debate. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> |
|||
|- |
|||
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" | |
|||
==Ongoing [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|WP:BLP]]-related concerns== |
==Ongoing [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|WP:BLP]]-related concerns== |
||
The following subsections may apply to any or all [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|Biographies of living persons]]. |
The following subsections may apply to any or all [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|Biographies of living persons]]. |
||
==Unreferenced BLPs== |
|||
There are over 8300 articles on living people that have the {{tl|unreferenced}} tag. [[User:Messedrocker/Unreferenced BLPs|This]] is a list of them. (warning: pretty big page) <span style="font-size:95%">—[[User talk:Messedrocker|Signed]], your friendly neighborhood '''[[User:Messedrocker|MessedRocker]]'''.</span> 00:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC) |
There are over 8300 articles on living people that have the {{tl|unreferenced}} tag. [[User:Messedrocker/Unreferenced BLPs|This]] is a list of them. (warning: pretty big page) <span style="font-size:95%">—[[User talk:Messedrocker|Signed]], your friendly neighborhood '''[[User:Messedrocker|MessedRocker]]'''.</span> 00:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC) |
||
:Oh shit, that's worse than I thought.--[[User talk:Doc glasgow|Doc]]<sup>g</sup> 00:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC) |
:Oh shit, that's worse than I thought.--[[User talk:Doc glasgow|Doc]]<sup>g</sup> 00:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC) |
||
::Just looking through a few of them, they have the unreferenced tag at the top but with no indication in the text what the problematic unreferenced material is. It would be good if people could be encouraged not to use the general unreferenced tag, but to add the fact/citation-needed tag to the contentious issues. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup |
::Just looking through a few of them, they have the unreferenced tag at the top but with no indication in the text what the problematic unreferenced material is. It would be good if people could be encouraged not to use the general unreferenced tag, but to add the fact/citation-needed tag to the contentious issues. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|<sup style="color:purple;">(talk)</sup>]] 00:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC) |
||
::Actually, {{tl|fact}} should NEVER be used on contentious issues on BLPs. Uncited contentious material should simply be removed.--[[User talk:Doc glasgow|Doc]]<sup>g</sup> 02:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC) |
::Actually, {{tl|fact}} should NEVER be used on contentious issues on BLPs. Uncited contentious material should simply be removed.--[[User talk:Doc glasgow|Doc]]<sup>g</sup> 02:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC) |
||
Line 17: | Line 30: | ||
: This list was updated again recently; as of May 19, 2008, there were 14,679 totally unreferenced biographies and 13,405 biographies with the 'fact' tag. [[User:Messedrocker/Unreferenced BLPs|Let's get to work!]] -- [[user:phoebe|phoebe]] / <small>([[user_talk:phoebe|talk to me]])</small> 00:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC) |
: This list was updated again recently; as of May 19, 2008, there were 14,679 totally unreferenced biographies and 13,405 biographies with the 'fact' tag. [[User:Messedrocker/Unreferenced BLPs|Let's get to work!]] -- [[user:phoebe|phoebe]] / <small>([[user_talk:phoebe|talk to me]])</small> 00:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
Working mainly in visual arts articles, I come across a lot of unreferenced BLPs. The majority are written by a new user, whose only contributions are to that article and related, i.e. most likely either the subject of the article or an agent for them. It would be interesting to see how many unreferenced BLPs fit this category. '''''[[User:Tyrenius|< |
Working mainly in visual arts articles, I come across a lot of unreferenced BLPs. The majority are written by a new user, whose only contributions are to that article and related, i.e. most likely either the subject of the article or an agent for them. It would be interesting to see how many unreferenced BLPs fit this category. '''''[[User:Tyrenius|<span style="color:#880088;">Ty</span>]]''''' 10:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC) |
||
:Just a FYI, BLP's with insufficient sourcing should preferably get the template {{tl|BLPsources}} ([[:Category:BLP articles lacking sources]]), while completely unsourced BLP's should get {{tl|BLPunsourced}}. The latter is brandnew so the [[:Category:Unreferenced BLPs]] is nearly empty. I hope these can be of help! [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 15:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
⚫ | |||
::I was thinking of some form of triage to look at harm mimimization given the huge number of unreferenced bits and pieces. Would it be helpful to have two extra templates - one which ran along the lines of "This highly controversial material needs to be referenced" and one for "moderately controversial...". The idea being the unreferenced sections within BLPs are then given some form of rank in terms of urgency? Does this already exist? This may make the list somewhat more manageable as editors can find an easy place to figure out what to prioritize. Cheers, [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 00:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::Well, the first ("highly controversial") needs to be removed asap, not templated. The second is debatable. I don't think it can do any harm, but I'll focus for now on tagging the completely unsourced BLP's. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 09:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::OK, good point - I was musing on ones where it is/was common knowledge maybe. I will try to think of/look for some. Cheers, [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 11:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
⚫ | |||
* [[Special:Linksearch/*.sohh.com]] |
* [[Special:Linksearch/*.sohh.com]] |
||
Line 25: | Line 46: | ||
Similar to whutdat.com (see below), I'm seeing an alarming number of hip-hop biographies attributing SOHH.com as a source. It claims to be a magazine, but it really looks like an over-sensationalized blog to me. At the time of this writing, there are 310+ biographical pages linking to this site. Nearly all of the links are either dead or redirect to a blog site which contain '''highly questionable''' tabloid-like articles. Example headline: ''"Courtney Love Needs to Shut Her “Hole”! Junkie Grunge Queen Thinks VMAs Too "Urban”"'' Community input is requested here. [[User:JBsupreme|JBsupreme]] ([[User talk:JBsupreme|talk]]) 08:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC) |
Similar to whutdat.com (see below), I'm seeing an alarming number of hip-hop biographies attributing SOHH.com as a source. It claims to be a magazine, but it really looks like an over-sensationalized blog to me. At the time of this writing, there are 310+ biographical pages linking to this site. Nearly all of the links are either dead or redirect to a blog site which contain '''highly questionable''' tabloid-like articles. Example headline: ''"Courtney Love Needs to Shut Her “Hole”! Junkie Grunge Queen Thinks VMAs Too "Urban”"'' Community input is requested here. [[User:JBsupreme|JBsupreme]] ([[User talk:JBsupreme|talk]]) 08:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
:You are indeed looking at an over-sensationalized blog with your example headline. That blog post clearly contains the text ''[Editor's Note: The views of this blog do not necessarily reflect those of SOHH.com]''. So draw a distinction between blog posts and sohh news articles. |
|||
:[[Special:Linksearch/blogs.sohh.com]] gives a more manageable 24 cites that probably could stand some scrutiny. [[Special:Contributions/86.44.24.76|86.44.24.76]] ([[User talk:86.44.24.76|talk]]) 05:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
==Whutdat.com== |
|||
* [[Special:Linksearch/*.whutdat.com]] |
* [[Special:Linksearch/*.whutdat.com]] |
||
I'm witnessing some hip-hop biographies being sourced to a website called "whutdat.com". The site looks like a blog to me but I can't really be too sure these days. Is this a reliable source or should it be thrown out? My senses tell me its the latter but I'd like a second or third opinion. Thanks, [[User:JBsupreme|JBsupreme]] ([[User talk:JBsupreme|talk]]) 08:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC) |
I'm witnessing some hip-hop biographies being sourced to a website called "whutdat.com". The site looks like a blog to me but I can't really be too sure these days. Is this a reliable source or should it be thrown out? My senses tell me its the latter but I'd like a second or third opinion. Thanks, [[User:JBsupreme|JBsupreme]] ([[User talk:JBsupreme|talk]]) 08:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
==[[NNDB]] Notable Names Database== |
|||
* [[Special:Linksearch/*.nndb.com]] |
* [[Special:Linksearch/*.nndb.com]] |
||
Line 46: | Line 70: | ||
The NNDB contains reams of errors and misclassifications (calling all world leaders "heads of state", for instance, or calling all cardiac deaths "heart failure" - that one's inexcusably stupid). There's no way to correct the errors (most corrections end up thrown out from what I can see) and the database owners seem to care more about sensationalism than fact. For some years they reported the Catherine the Great horse story as if it were gospel truth. If the NNDB said the sun rose in the east, I'd verify first. Entertaining but wholly unreliable. --[[User:NellieBly|NellieBly]] ([[User talk:NellieBly|talk]]) 09:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC) |
The NNDB contains reams of errors and misclassifications (calling all world leaders "heads of state", for instance, or calling all cardiac deaths "heart failure" - that one's inexcusably stupid). There's no way to correct the errors (most corrections end up thrown out from what I can see) and the database owners seem to care more about sensationalism than fact. For some years they reported the Catherine the Great horse story as if it were gospel truth. If the NNDB said the sun rose in the east, I'd verify first. Entertaining but wholly unreliable. --[[User:NellieBly|NellieBly]] ([[User talk:NellieBly|talk]]) 09:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC) |
||
==[[Jewish Virtual Library]]== |
|||
* [[Special:Linksearch/*.jewishvirtuallibrary.org]] |
* [[Special:Linksearch/*.jewishvirtuallibrary.org]] |
||
Line 54: | Line 78: | ||
:: I have to agree with Notmyrealname on this, we should not be citing the Jewish Virtual Library for any living person biography. [[User:JBsupreme|JBsupreme]] ([[User talk:JBsupreme|talk]]) 08:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC) |
:: I have to agree with Notmyrealname on this, we should not be citing the Jewish Virtual Library for any living person biography. [[User:JBsupreme|JBsupreme]] ([[User talk:JBsupreme|talk]]) 08:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
::: Can we also agree that for similar and even stronger reasons citing http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-entertainment-folder.html is deprecated? '''[[User:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:Purple">Ϣere</span>]][[User talk:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:Orange">Spiel</span>]][[Special:Contributions/WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:Pink">Chequers]]''' |
::: Can we also agree that for similar and even stronger reasons citing http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-entertainment-folder.html is deprecated? '''[[User:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:Purple">Ϣere</span>]][[User talk:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:Orange">Spiel</span>]][[Special:Contributions/WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:Pink">Chequers</span>]]''' 17:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
:::: Oy, vey. Thanks for introducing me to THAT little slice of heaven. :) I agree, it should not be a source for info in any BLP. [[User:David in DC|David in DC]] ([[User talk:David in DC|talk]]) 18:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC) |
:::: Oy, vey. Thanks for introducing me to THAT little slice of heaven. :) I agree, it should not be a source for info in any BLP. [[User:David in DC|David in DC]] ([[User talk:David in DC|talk]]) 18:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
:::::I've now searched for Jewwatch and only found [[Jew Watch]], [[Google bomb]], [[Steven Weinstock]] and [[Zionist Occupation Government]], all of which makes sense to me. But I don't think that wiki search finds links such as the one on this page or the [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Marilyn_Manson&diff=prev&oldid=227070074 one I reverted]. Anyone know how to search for Websites being quoted in references? '''[[User:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:Purple">Ϣere</span>]][[User talk:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:Orange">Spiel</span>]][[Special:Contributions/WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:Pink">Chequers]]''' |
:::::I've now searched for Jewwatch and only found [[Jew Watch]], [[Google bomb]], [[Steven Weinstock]] and [[Zionist Occupation Government]], all of which makes sense to me. But I don't think that wiki search finds links such as the one on this page or the [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Marilyn_Manson&diff=prev&oldid=227070074 one I reverted]. Anyone know how to search for Websites being quoted in references? '''[[User:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:Purple">Ϣere</span>]][[User talk:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:Orange">Spiel</span>]][[Special:Contributions/WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:Pink">Chequers</span>]]''' 10:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
::::::I raised this at the London meetup and have been given a couple of techniques; googling [http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=jewwatch.com+site:wikipedia.org&start=30&sa=N&filter=0 this] way gets reassuringly only 40 hits, one in Hebrew which I doubt needs translating and most of the rest in archives and discussions on user pages about hate sites. But on [[Special:linksearch]] jewwatch.com comes up 69 times including some that I think need checking out. '''[[User:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:Purple">Ϣere</span>]][[User talk:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:Orange">Spiel</span>]][[Special:Contributions/WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:Pink">Chequers]]''' |
::::::I raised this at the London meetup and have been given a couple of techniques; googling [http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=jewwatch.com+site:wikipedia.org&start=30&sa=N&filter=0 this] way gets reassuringly only 40 hits, one in Hebrew which I doubt needs translating and most of the rest in archives and discussions on user pages about hate sites. But on [[Special:linksearch]] jewwatch.com comes up 69 times including some that I think need checking out. '''[[User:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:Purple">Ϣere</span>]][[User talk:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:Orange">Spiel</span>]][[Special:Contributions/WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:Pink">Chequers</span>]]''' 17:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
==f1fanatic== |
|||
* [[Special:Linksearch/*.f1fanatic.co.uk]] |
* [[Special:Linksearch/*.f1fanatic.co.uk]] |
||
This site is being used as a reference on a number of Formula 1 biographies. It appears to be fan-run and self-published site, without the fact-checking and editorial oversight [[WP:RS]] requires, and as such may not meet standards outlined in [[WP:BLP#Sources]]. Most, if not all, of the links were added by the site's owner(s) and/or author(s), which raises additional [[WP:COI]] issues. The site has other problems, for instance displaying images with no copyright info (<nowiki>http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/wallpapers/</nowiki>) and linking to copyvio Youtube clips (<nowiki>http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2006/06/18/100-greatest-f1-videos-part-i/</nowiki>). There has been some prior talk page discussion about the link's appropriateness ([[Talk:Lewis Hamilton/Archive 1#f1fanatic.co.uk as a reference|f1fanatic.co.uk as a reference]], [[Talk:Lewis Hamilton#External link - F1F biography|External link - F1F biography]]). --[[User:Muchness|Muchness]] 10:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC) |
This site is being used as a reference on a number of Formula 1 biographies. It appears to be fan-run and self-published site, without the fact-checking and editorial oversight [[WP:RS]] requires, and as such may not meet standards outlined in [[WP:BLP#Sources]]. Most, if not all, of the links were added by the site's owner(s) and/or author(s), which raises additional [[WP:COI]] issues. The site has other problems, for instance displaying images with no copyright info (<nowiki>http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/wallpapers/</nowiki>) and linking to copyvio Youtube clips (<nowiki>http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2006/06/18/100-greatest-f1-videos-part-i/</nowiki>). There has been some prior talk page discussion about the link's appropriateness ([[Talk:Lewis Hamilton/Archive 1#f1fanatic.co.uk as a reference|f1fanatic.co.uk as a reference]], [[Talk:Lewis Hamilton#External link - F1F biography|External link - F1F biography]]). --[[User:Muchness|Muchness]] 10:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC) |
||
==WhosDatedWho.com== |
|||
* [[Special:Linksearch/*.whosdatedwho.com]] |
* [[Special:Linksearch/*.whosdatedwho.com]] |
||
Line 81: | Line 105: | ||
:::It's true that WDW can't be used as a source itself, but it might be used to find sources that can be included. —[[User:Ashley Y|Ashley Y]] 00:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC) |
:::It's true that WDW can't be used as a source itself, but it might be used to find sources that can be included. —[[User:Ashley Y|Ashley Y]] 00:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC) |
||
==[[WP:BLP#Reliable sources]] policy section itself== |
|||
*Edit warring, protection, unprotection, non-consensus changes, edit warring, protection by administrator <s>involved in previously editing this project page</s>. For contexts of problems affecting the protected current version of this section of the project policy page, please see [[Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons]] (and archives). Thank you. --[[User:NYScholar|NYScholar]] 00:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC) [strike out in response to reply below. --[[User:NYScholar|NYScholar]] 18:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)] |
*Edit warring, protection, unprotection, non-consensus changes, edit warring, protection by administrator <s>involved in previously editing this project page</s>. For contexts of problems affecting the protected current version of this section of the project policy page, please see [[Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons]] (and archives). Thank you. --[[User:NYScholar|NYScholar]] 00:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC) [strike out in response to reply below. --[[User:NYScholar|NYScholar]] 18:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)] |
||
**As the protecting admin, I'll leave a quick note regarding the part about "protection by administrator involved in previously editing this project page". First, there are probably relatively few admins who haven't edited a policy page, including WP:BLP. Second, although the page is on my watchlist, I have for the last month or so stayed away from the constant disputes that seem to plague it. My [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ABiographies_of_living_persons&diff=152101682&oldid=152093649 last edit], and the only one affected by the dispute which led to this page protection, was made 10 days ago (on August 18). It consisted solely of a minor rewording and did not constitute a change in meaning. As far as the two issues currently under dispute ... I don't feel strongly about either of them. Third, the version I protected, inevitably [[meta:The Wrong Version|The Wrong Version]], was the one that happened to be there when I noticed the escalating (both in the nature of comments and frequency of reverts) edit-warring. — '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 00:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC) |
**As the protecting admin, I'll leave a quick note regarding the part about "protection by administrator involved in previously editing this project page". First, there are probably relatively few admins who haven't edited a policy page, including WP:BLP. Second, although the page is on my watchlist, I have for the last month or so stayed away from the constant disputes that seem to plague it. My [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ABiographies_of_living_persons&diff=152101682&oldid=152093649 last edit], and the only one affected by the dispute which led to this page protection, was made 10 days ago (on August 18). It consisted solely of a minor rewording and did not constitute a change in meaning. As far as the two issues currently under dispute ... I don't feel strongly about either of them. Third, the version I protected, inevitably [[meta:The Wrong Version|The Wrong Version]], was the one that happened to be there when I noticed the escalating (both in the nature of comments and frequency of reverts) edit-warring. — '''[[User:Black Falcon|Black Falcon]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Black Falcon|Talk]])''</sup> 00:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC) |
||
Line 88: | Line 112: | ||
*****Following your suggestion above, I have posted a message about these concerns in [[Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Re: WP:BLP#Reliable sources]] (talk page of [[WP:V]]); [[Wikipedia talk:No original research#Re: WP:BLP#Reliable sources]] (talk page of [[WP:NOR]]), and [[Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view#Re: WP:BLP#Reliable sources]] (talk page of [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]]), and in [[WP:RSN#Re: WP:BLP#Reliable sources]] ([[WP:RSN]]). Thanks for the suggestion. --[[User:NYScholar|NYScholar]] 18:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC) |
*****Following your suggestion above, I have posted a message about these concerns in [[Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Re: WP:BLP#Reliable sources]] (talk page of [[WP:V]]); [[Wikipedia talk:No original research#Re: WP:BLP#Reliable sources]] (talk page of [[WP:NOR]]), and [[Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view#Re: WP:BLP#Reliable sources]] (talk page of [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]]), and in [[WP:RSN#Re: WP:BLP#Reliable sources]] ([[WP:RSN]]). Thanks for the suggestion. --[[User:NYScholar|NYScholar]] 18:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC) |
||
==Porn actors' birth names== |
|||
{| class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" |
|||
|- |
|||
! style="background-color: #f2dfce;" | This discussion has been collapsed. |
|||
|- |
|||
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" | |
|||
The last several days worth of edits at [[Lukas Ridgeston]], [[Tim Hamilton (porn star)]], and the [[March 14]] entry for Johan Paulik raise serious BLP issues. Would someone review them please? [[User:David in DC|David in DC]] ([[User talk:David in DC|talk]]) 01:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC) |
The last several days worth of edits at [[Lukas Ridgeston]], [[Tim Hamilton (porn star)]], and the [[March 14]] entry for Johan Paulik raise serious BLP issues. Would someone review them please? [[User:David in DC|David in DC]] ([[User talk:David in DC|talk]]) 01:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
: Yes I will address them. When an actor's real name is reliably sourced and widely disseminated it may be placed on the article. Addresses and phone numbers should not be placed on the article. Repeated removal of well sourced and widely disseminated names should be regarded, in my opinion, as vandalism. [[User:John celona|John celona]] ([[User talk:John celona|talk]]) 13:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC) |
: Yes I will address them. When an actor's real name is reliably sourced and widely disseminated it may be placed on the article. Addresses and phone numbers should not be placed on the article. Repeated removal of well sourced and widely disseminated names should be regarded, in my opinion, as vandalism. [[User:John celona|John celona]] ([[User talk:John celona|talk]]) 13:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
Line 108: | Line 138: | ||
:If we change this policy we need to change it universally, or not at all, and have admin deletes of history of reference to birth names. --[[User:BenBurch|BenBurch]] ([[User talk:BenBurch|talk]]) 17:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC) |
:If we change this policy we need to change it universally, or not at all, and have admin deletes of history of reference to birth names. --[[User:BenBurch|BenBurch]] ([[User talk:BenBurch|talk]]) 17:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
::This is going to come up repeatedly in the future. In the [[Talk:Brandy_Alexandre/Archive1|Brandy Alexandre case]], some editors seemed to think that we were just applying the [[WP:RS|reliable source]] policy to birth names, and only including those that were reliably attested. But the above discussion tells me that some editors *still* don't want real names included even when published in sources that would be accepted as reliable for other purposes. If this is the case, we should know. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 18:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC) |
::This is going to come up repeatedly in the future. In the [[Talk:Brandy_Alexandre/Archive1|Brandy Alexandre case]], some editors seemed to think that we were just applying the [[WP:RS|reliable source]] policy to birth names, and only including those that were reliably attested. But the above discussion tells me that some editors *still* don't want real names included even when published in sources that would be accepted as reliable for other purposes. If this is the case, we should know. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 18:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
:::This is really disturbing to me. Someone really needs to explain to [[User:John celona]] that Wikipedia isn't just a place that reports every lurid detail about sexually related articles. He's strongly argued for the inclusion of all material related to underage sex crime victims multiple times (as evidenced by CalendarWatcher) and now he's trying to disseminate private details about porn actors because marginally reliable sources (and frankly some unreliable sources) report them. Ugh. No. If he wants to start a wiki of his own that exploits these people he is welcome to do so, but I don't think that kind of attitude is appropriate here. [[User talk:AniMate|< |
:::This is really disturbing to me. Someone really needs to explain to [[User:John celona]] that Wikipedia isn't just a place that reports every lurid detail about sexually related articles. He's strongly argued for the inclusion of all material related to underage sex crime victims multiple times (as evidenced by CalendarWatcher) and now he's trying to disseminate private details about porn actors because marginally reliable sources (and frankly some unreliable sources) report them. Ugh. No. If he wants to start a wiki of his own that exploits these people he is welcome to do so, but I don't think that kind of attitude is appropriate here. [[User talk:AniMate|<span style="font-family:papyrus; color:Green;">Ani</span>]][[Special:Contributions/AniMate|<span style="font-family:papyrus; color:Black;">Mate</span>]] 18:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
::::Are you suggesting that a name attested by a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] should still be suppressed at the request of the subject? We need to know if you are asking for a policy change or not. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 18:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC) |
::::Are you suggesting that a name attested by a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] should still be suppressed at the request of the subject? We need to know if you are asking for a policy change or not. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 18:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
:::::I would say a policy change is in order. If someone's lone claim to fame is pornography and they want to reclaim some of their privacy, then absolutely we should remove their real name. In fact, I would argue that more often than not, real names shouldn't be used unless they are widely used by the mainstream media. For that to happen, I'm thinking most porn stars would have to have some other claim to fame besides having sex on film. [[User talk:AniMate|< |
:::::I would say a policy change is in order. If someone's lone claim to fame is pornography and they want to reclaim some of their privacy, then absolutely we should remove their real name. In fact, I would argue that more often than not, real names shouldn't be used unless they are widely used by the mainstream media. For that to happen, I'm thinking most porn stars would have to have some other claim to fame besides having sex on film. [[User talk:AniMate|<span style="font-family:papyrus; color:Green;">Ani</span>]][[Special:Contributions/AniMate|<span style="font-family:papyrus; color:Black;">Mate</span>]] 18:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
:::::: I am in agreement with a policy change. There is no gain to "outing" people like this. --[[User:Jkp212|Jkp212]] ([[User talk:Jkp212|talk]]) 19:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC) |
:::::: I am in agreement with a policy change. There is no gain to "outing" people like this. --[[User:Jkp212|Jkp212]] ([[User talk:Jkp212|talk]]) 19:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
::::::: So let's throw an ''hypothetical'' example out to see how this proposed change works... say [[Savanna Samson]] comes to us and says "I don't want my real name used in the article". If you look at the article, there is a reference for it which points directly to an article in the [[New York Times]], which is probably one of the more reliable sources out there and also one of the more visible ones (the third highest circulation according to [[List of newspapers in the United States by circulation]]). So... do we pull the name or not? [[User:Tabercil|Tabercil]] ([[User talk:Tabercil|talk]]) 20:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC) |
::::::: So let's throw an ''hypothetical'' example out to see how this proposed change works... say [[Savanna Samson]] comes to us and says "I don't want my real name used in the article". If you look at the article, there is a reference for it which points directly to an article in the [[New York Times]], which is probably one of the more reliable sources out there and also one of the more visible ones (the third highest circulation according to [[List of newspapers in the United States by circulation]]). So... do we pull the name or not? [[User:Tabercil|Tabercil]] ([[User talk:Tabercil|talk]]) 20:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
::::::::In that case I would say ''probably'' not, though that would ultimately depend on why she wanted her name removed. The argument for removal of real names is that these people use pseudonyms to obscure their identities. While she will always be better known as Savanna Samson, I think it's clear with that interview and her other projects that she has no intention of obfuscating her identity anymore. [[User talk:AniMate|< |
::::::::In that case I would say ''probably'' not, though that would ultimately depend on why she wanted her name removed. The argument for removal of real names is that these people use pseudonyms to obscure their identities. While she will always be better known as Savanna Samson, I think it's clear with that interview and her other projects that she has no intention of obfuscating her identity anymore. [[User talk:AniMate|<span style="font-family:papyrus; color:Green;">Ani</span>]][[Special:Contributions/AniMate|<span style="font-family:papyrus; color:Black;">Mate</span>]] 21:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
::::::::: I lean toward yes. We take her birth name out, but use the NYT article as a source for some other fact, if it backs one. NYT has it's editorial discretion and we have ours. Ours protects the privacy (and safety) of living persons more than theirs does. That's not censorship, it's editing. |
::::::::: I lean toward yes. We take her birth name out, but use the NYT article as a source for some other fact, if it backs one. NYT has it's editorial discretion and we have ours. Ours protects the privacy (and safety) of living persons more than theirs does. That's not censorship, it's editing. |
||
::::::::: I can imagine a case where the answer is no. If Savanna ever kills someone on a porn set, the names are gonna be linked. Or if she testifies before Congress, under her birth name, in support of branding strippers and porn stars' with a Scarlet X. But we ought to set the bar pretty high in favor of omitting birth names. [[User:David in DC|David in DC]] ([[User talk:David in DC|talk]]) 21:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC) |
::::::::: I can imagine a case where the answer is no. If Savanna ever kills someone on a porn set, the names are gonna be linked. Or if she testifies before Congress, under her birth name, in support of branding strippers and porn stars' with a Scarlet X. But we ought to set the bar pretty high in favor of omitting birth names. [[User:David in DC|David in DC]] ([[User talk:David in DC|talk]]) 21:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
::::::::::My own personal thinking is probably not to remove the name in this instance. Why? Because of the visibility and reliability of the source of the name, unless it can be shown to be in error, removing the name would be akin to closing the barn door long after the horse has disappeared over the horizon. However, if the source was ''much'' thinner, then I can the name being removed. However, we should clearly have a requirement that the real name ''must'' be sourced; I know the the guidelines for [[WP:P*]] (which perhaps is the work group closest to the subject) are clear as seen [[WP:P*#Real_names_of_performers|here]]. [[User:Tabercil|Tabercil]] ([[User talk:Tabercil|talk]]) 21:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC) |
::::::::::My own personal thinking is probably not to remove the name in this instance. Why? Because of the visibility and reliability of the source of the name, unless it can be shown to be in error, removing the name would be akin to closing the barn door long after the horse has disappeared over the horizon. However, if the source was ''much'' thinner, then I can the name being removed. However, we should clearly have a requirement that the real name ''must'' be sourced; I know the the guidelines for [[WP:P*]] (which perhaps is the work group closest to the subject) are clear as seen [[WP:P*#Real_names_of_performers|here]]. [[User:Tabercil|Tabercil]] ([[User talk:Tabercil|talk]]) 21:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
:::::::::::Just because something is verifiable and well sourced, doesn't mean we include it in articles. [[WP:BLP]] often trumps reliable sources and verifiability. [[User talk:AniMate|< |
:::::::::::Just because something is verifiable and well sourced, doesn't mean we include it in articles. [[WP:BLP]] often trumps reliable sources and verifiability. [[User talk:AniMate|<span style="font-family:papyrus; color:Green;">Ani</span>]][[Special:Contributions/AniMate|<span style="font-family:papyrus; color:Black;">Mate</span>]] 21:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
::::::::::::If that's a policy change, what is the limitation on it? Any subject of a biography can ask for their real name to be excluded, no matter how well known it is? [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 21:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC) |
::::::::::::If that's a policy change, what is the limitation on it? Any subject of a biography can ask for their real name to be excluded, no matter how well known it is? [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 21:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
(undent) Is it specifically laid out in policy? No, but there is a presumption in favor of the privacy of marginally notable people. Exact birth dates are routinely removed for the marginally notable (and that is policy), and (generally speaking) porn stars real names aren't very well known. Looking through the links supplied by CalendarWatcher above, you'll see a case where two minors who were victims of sex crimes had the majority of personal information about them removed from the encyclopedia. All of the information about them was ridiculously well sourced to major and undeniably reliable news agencies. Still, the information was removed and the articles redirected (if I'm not mistaken). I think the removal of real names is definitely up for interpretation, but in the case of a porn star with very few or no other accomplishments... I think we should remove without prejudice unless a valid argument can be made to include them. [[User talk:AniMate|< |
(undent) Is it specifically laid out in policy? No, but there is a presumption in favor of the privacy of marginally notable people. Exact birth dates are routinely removed for the marginally notable (and that is policy), and (generally speaking) porn stars real names aren't very well known. Looking through the links supplied by CalendarWatcher above, you'll see a case where two minors who were victims of sex crimes had the majority of personal information about them removed from the encyclopedia. All of the information about them was ridiculously well sourced to major and undeniably reliable news agencies. Still, the information was removed and the articles redirected (if I'm not mistaken). I think the removal of real names is definitely up for interpretation, but in the case of a porn star with very few or no other accomplishments... I think we should remove without prejudice unless a valid argument can be made to include them. [[User talk:AniMate|<span style="font-family:papyrus; color:Green;">Ani</span>]][[Special:Contributions/AniMate|<span style="font-family:papyrus; color:Black;">Mate</span>]] 22:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
:I'm agreeing that we could follow a rule where such names are sometimes omitted. I just need someone to give the scope of the rule so that we don't need a lengthy discussion every time the subject comes up again. If the existing policy is too vague in this area we could ask for the policy to be made specific. You could even ask for a change in policy that is limited to porn stars, to avoid widening the debate too much. (Comparing to the example given by AniMate, porn stars don't seem to have much in common with minors who are the victims of sex crimes). [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 01:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC) |
:I'm agreeing that we could follow a rule where such names are sometimes omitted. I just need someone to give the scope of the rule so that we don't need a lengthy discussion every time the subject comes up again. If the existing policy is too vague in this area we could ask for the policy to be made specific. You could even ask for a change in policy that is limited to porn stars, to avoid widening the debate too much. (Comparing to the example given by AniMate, porn stars don't seem to have much in common with minors who are the victims of sex crimes). [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 01:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
::You're right that there is nothing in common between the two, and I hope I didn't imply that there was. I'm not sure that there is a clear cut line that can be determined other than saying "err on the side of privacy". Savanna Samson, for instance, has clearly made an attempt to market herself to a more mainstream audience outside of porn. The same goes for [[Jenna Jameson]] and [[Jeff Stryker]]. Tim Hamilton, Johan Paulik, and Lukas Ridgeston don't seem to have any encyclopedic accomplishments outside of pornography. There is no benefit to revealing their real names, and there could in fact be great harm to them in doing so. [[User talk:AniMate|< |
::You're right that there is nothing in common between the two, and I hope I didn't imply that there was. I'm not sure that there is a clear cut line that can be determined other than saying "err on the side of privacy". Savanna Samson, for instance, has clearly made an attempt to market herself to a more mainstream audience outside of porn. The same goes for [[Jenna Jameson]] and [[Jeff Stryker]]. Tim Hamilton, Johan Paulik, and Lukas Ridgeston don't seem to have any encyclopedic accomplishments outside of pornography. There is no benefit to revealing their real names, and there could in fact be great harm to them in doing so. [[User talk:AniMate|<span style="font-family:papyrus; color:Green;">Ani</span>]][[Special:Contributions/AniMate|<span style="font-family:papyrus; color:Black;">Mate</span>]] 02:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
:::Thank you for bringing it back to Paulik, Ridgeston and Hamiliton. It's poor judgment to out any of these three. We need the opposite kind of rule than the one EdJohnston suggests above. We need a rule for when a porn actor's birth name should be included. The presumption should be against inserting these birth names, except in the most extraordinary of circumstance. People act in porn under assumed names for reasons of privacy and safety. We should honor the request for safety and privacy that acting under a stage name clearly requests. [[User:David in DC|David in DC]] ([[User talk:David in DC|talk]]) 02:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC) |
:::Thank you for bringing it back to Paulik, Ridgeston and Hamiliton. It's poor judgment to out any of these three. We need the opposite kind of rule than the one EdJohnston suggests above. We need a rule for when a porn actor's birth name should be included. The presumption should be against inserting these birth names, except in the most extraordinary of circumstance. People act in porn under assumed names for reasons of privacy and safety. We should honor the request for safety and privacy that acting under a stage name clearly requests. [[User:David in DC|David in DC]] ([[User talk:David in DC|talk]]) 02:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
::::I'm not sure that David in DC's idea would leave us with a clear rule to follow. I like AniMate's last comment because I can deduce a rule from it. How about: |
::::I'm not sure that David in DC's idea would leave us with a clear rule to follow. I like AniMate's last comment because I can deduce a rule from it. How about: |
||
Line 128: | Line 158: | ||
:::::Well the first clause I have no problems with, and the second one shouldn't be a problem because anything that'll cause them to be mentioned by a reliable source will most likely be for outside of porn. [[User:Tabercil|Tabercil]] ([[User talk:Tabercil|talk]]) 03:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC) |
:::::Well the first clause I have no problems with, and the second one shouldn't be a problem because anything that'll cause them to be mentioned by a reliable source will most likely be for outside of porn. [[User:Tabercil|Tabercil]] ([[User talk:Tabercil|talk]]) 03:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
:::::: I like both clauses too, and I personally feel it's essential to include the second part so that there is clarity on that point. --[[User:Jkp212|Jkp212]] ([[User talk:Jkp212|talk]]) 05:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC) |
:::::: I like both clauses too, and I personally feel it's essential to include the second part so that there is clarity on that point. --[[User:Jkp212|Jkp212]] ([[User talk:Jkp212|talk]]) 05:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
===Section break=== |
|||
''Give the real names of porn stars only when the names are reliably sourced, and only when the stars are noted for some activities outside of pornography.'' |
''Give the real names of porn stars only when the names are reliably sourced, and only when the stars are noted for some activities outside of pornography.'' |
||
This seems to be a popular and rational choice. Are there any objections? If there are, how would they be beneficial to building an encyclopedia? [[User talk:AniMate|< |
This seems to be a popular and rational choice. Are there any objections? If there are, how would they be beneficial to building an encyclopedia? [[User talk:AniMate|<span style="font-family:papyrus; color:Green;">Ani</span>]][[Special:Contributions/AniMate|<span style="font-family:papyrus; color:Black;">Mate</span>]] 07:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
: The "objection" is very simple. If an actor's name is widely disseminated and reliably sourced it should be in the article. If one can google the actor's stage name along with the words "real name", "birth name", etc. and come up with a reliable source on the first page than the proverbial cat has escaped the bag. [[User:John celona|John celona]] ([[User talk:John celona|talk]]) 13:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC) |
: The "objection" is very simple. If an actor's name is widely disseminated and reliably sourced it should be in the article. If one can google the actor's stage name along with the words "real name", "birth name", etc. and come up with a reliable source on the first page than the proverbial cat has escaped the bag. [[User:John celona|John celona]] ([[User talk:John celona|talk]]) 13:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
:: Your "objection" is of course not as simple as you try to tell again and again. It makes a BIG difference if you read a WP article about people in the porn business, which includes the real name, or if you read the same article without the real name and having to do an additional Google search on your own, which most people have no interest in at all except they have some ill intentions. As said above regarding Lukas Ridgeston and Tim Hamilton widely disseminated and reliably sourced are different from what Google is coming up with for both cases. To avoid any future discussions about this IMO the second part of the statement above in italic is very crucial. ([[User:Jamesbeat|Jamesbeat]] ([[User talk:Jamesbeat|talk]]) 15:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)) |
:: Your "objection" is of course not as simple as you try to tell again and again. It makes a BIG difference if you read a WP article about people in the porn business, which includes the real name, or if you read the same article without the real name and having to do an additional Google search on your own, which most people have no interest in at all except they have some ill intentions. As said above regarding Lukas Ridgeston and Tim Hamilton widely disseminated and reliably sourced are different from what Google is coming up with for both cases. To avoid any future discussions about this IMO the second part of the statement above in italic is very crucial. ([[User:Jamesbeat|Jamesbeat]] ([[User talk:Jamesbeat|talk]]) 15:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)) |
||
::: It's important for WP to take a stand that, as many of the other editors, have mentioned above, WP should not be the primary vehicle for the spreading of this information unless there is a special reason (like activities outside of porn).. In Celona's example, he mentioned a situation where someone is actively seeking out a birth name of the actor's name (like a stalker); however, most people will come to the WP article not actively seeking out the actor's birth name, and therefore WP becomes the primary vehicle for the spread of this information. In other words, it's more complicated than just being reliably sourced, as Animate points out above. Secondly, without taking a firm stand you open up the door for irresponsible edits, such as this one by Celona [[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Tim_Hamilton_%28porn_star%29&diff=prev&oldid=216956723]] where the "reliable source" he cited was a porn site. --[[User:Jkp212|Jkp212]] ([[User talk:Jkp212|talk]]) 16:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC) |
::: It's important for WP to take a stand that, as many of the other editors, have mentioned above, WP should not be the primary vehicle for the spreading of this information unless there is a special reason (like activities outside of porn).. In Celona's example, he mentioned a situation where someone is actively seeking out a birth name of the actor's name (like a stalker); however, most people will come to the WP article not actively seeking out the actor's birth name, and therefore WP becomes the primary vehicle for the spread of this information. In other words, it's more complicated than just being reliably sourced, as Animate points out above. Secondly, without taking a firm stand you open up the door for irresponsible edits, such as this one by Celona [[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Tim_Hamilton_%28porn_star%29&diff=prev&oldid=216956723]] where the "reliable source" he cited was a porn site. --[[User:Jkp212|Jkp212]] ([[User talk:Jkp212|talk]]) 16:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
::::Widely disseminated? [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22david+fiala%22+%22tim+hamilton%22&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=dI1&filter=0 Here] is a google search for Tim Hamilton with the "real" name you added to his article. John, you need to understand that we have to edit responsibly. It is something you seem to fight every time someone tells you that information isn't appropriate for the encyclopedia. You fought bitterly for all possible information to be written about two ''minors'' who were victims of sex crimes. You really have to start understanding [[WP:BLP]] and that when it is applied is not censorship but editors acting responsibly. [[User talk:AniMate|< |
::::Widely disseminated? [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22david+fiala%22+%22tim+hamilton%22&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=dI1&filter=0 Here] is a google search for Tim Hamilton with the "real" name you added to his article. John, you need to understand that we have to edit responsibly. It is something you seem to fight every time someone tells you that information isn't appropriate for the encyclopedia. You fought bitterly for all possible information to be written about two ''minors'' who were victims of sex crimes. You really have to start understanding [[WP:BLP]] and that when it is applied is not censorship but editors acting responsibly. [[User talk:AniMate|<span style="font-family:papyrus; color:Green;">Ani</span>]][[Special:Contributions/AniMate|<span style="font-family:papyrus; color:Black;">Mate</span>]] 16:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
:::::Both clauses make sense to me. Responsible editorial discretion is not censorship. [[WP:BLP]] is a more restrictive policy than many other institutions follow. It's one we should be rightly proud of. We should enforce it against indiscriminate, ill-advised, mean-spirited or careless editors. [[User:David in DC|David in DC]] ([[User talk:David in DC|talk]]) 20:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC) |
:::::Both clauses make sense to me. Responsible editorial discretion is not censorship. [[WP:BLP]] is a more restrictive policy than many other institutions follow. It's one we should be rightly proud of. We should enforce it against indiscriminate, ill-advised, mean-spirited or careless editors. [[User:David in DC|David in DC]] ([[User talk:David in DC|talk]]) 20:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
Per this discussion, I've deleted Ridgeston's birth name.[[User:David in DC|David in DC]] ([[User talk:David in DC|talk]]) 20:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC) |
Per this discussion, I've deleted Ridgeston's birth name.[[User:David in DC|David in DC]] ([[User talk:David in DC|talk]]) 20:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
::::::Surely no one can argue Ridgeston's real name is not widely disseminated. I think it is more than absurd to say people with interest in celerities real names are "stalkers" [[User:John celona|John celona]] ([[User talk:John celona|talk]]) 22:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC) |
::::::Surely no one can argue Ridgeston's real name is not widely disseminated. I think it is more than absurd to say people with interest in celerities real names are "stalkers" [[User:John celona|John celona]] ([[User talk:John celona|talk]]) 22:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
[http://www.google.com/search?q=%22lukas+ridgeston%22+%22juraj+vrzgula%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a Here's a google search] with the real name you provided for Ridgeston showing that it is also not widely known. Again, you really need to read [[WP:BLP]] because you really don't seem to understand it... or at least you don't want to. [[User talk:AniMate|< |
[http://www.google.com/search?q=%22lukas+ridgeston%22+%22juraj+vrzgula%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a Here's a google search] with the real name you provided for Ridgeston showing that it is also not widely known. Again, you really need to read [[WP:BLP]] because you really don't seem to understand it... or at least you don't want to. [[User talk:AniMate|<span style="font-family:papyrus; color:Green;">Ani</span>]][[Special:Contributions/AniMate|<span style="font-family:papyrus; color:Black;">Mate</span>]] 22:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
::::::It is on almost every google hit! [[User:John celona|John celona]] ([[User talk:John celona|talk]]) 22:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC) |
::::::It is on almost every google hit! [[User:John celona|John celona]] ([[User talk:John celona|talk]]) 22:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
:::::::21 google hits is a joke when you compare the 78,000 google hits returned for [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22lukas+ridgeston%22+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a his stage name]. If there are only twenty or so places on the web that report his name, then it is not a widely known fact. From [[WP:BLP]] ''When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed...'' This name is not widely known and it has been intentionally concealed. Let it go. [[User talk:AniMate|< |
:::::::21 google hits is a joke when you compare the 78,000 google hits returned for [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22lukas+ridgeston%22+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a his stage name]. If there are only twenty or so places on the web that report his name, then it is not a widely known fact. From [[WP:BLP]] ''When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed...'' This name is not widely known and it has been intentionally concealed. Let it go. [[User talk:AniMate|<span style="font-family:papyrus; color:Green;">Ani</span>]][[Special:Contributions/AniMate|<span style="font-family:papyrus; color:Black;">Mate</span>]] 22:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
:::::::: I am disengaging from this issue-for now. It is sad that a handfull of pro-censorship editors can twist Wikipedia rules that compel boldness and inclusiveness and make them look like they compel a rather infantile, self-righteous censorship. For the record, for anyone reading this as an archive: There is NO regulation on Wikipedia distinguishing porn stars from any other actor or celebrity. If any actor's real name is reputably sourced and widely disseminated it SHOULD be in the article notwithstanding an actor's or a studio's wishes or alleged wishes. If a google search instantly reveals the actors real name through a reputable source the name belongs in the article. Don't be tricked by some sophist making the completely absurd argument that "20 sources isn't enough". Be bold and put the real name in. This is an encyclopedia not a game of "who can censor who" --many editors don't realize that [[User:John celona|John celona]] ([[User talk:John celona|talk]]) 00:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC) |
:::::::: I am disengaging from this issue-for now. It is sad that a handfull of pro-censorship editors can twist Wikipedia rules that compel boldness and inclusiveness and make them look like they compel a rather infantile, self-righteous censorship. For the record, for anyone reading this as an archive: There is NO regulation on Wikipedia distinguishing porn stars from any other actor or celebrity. If any actor's real name is reputably sourced and widely disseminated it SHOULD be in the article notwithstanding an actor's or a studio's wishes or alleged wishes. If a google search instantly reveals the actors real name through a reputable source the name belongs in the article. Don't be tricked by some sophist making the completely absurd argument that "20 sources isn't enough". Be bold and put the real name in. This is an encyclopedia not a game of "who can censor who" --many editors don't realize that [[User:John celona|John celona]] ([[User talk:John celona|talk]]) 00:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
:::::::::Blah, blah, blah....Celona, I am glad you reach out to those who are "reading this as an archive" -- clearly you will be remembered and looked back as the noble sole who fought hard for the right to "out" the private names of porn stars. --[[User:Jkp212|Jkp212]] ([[User talk:Jkp212|talk]]) 00:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC) |
:::::::::Blah, blah, blah....Celona, I am glad you reach out to those who are "reading this as an archive" -- clearly you will be remembered and looked back as the noble sole who fought hard for the right to "out" the private names of porn stars. --[[User:Jkp212|Jkp212]] ([[User talk:Jkp212|talk]]) 00:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
Line 153: | Line 183: | ||
:: BRAVO to you! As General Macarthur said-"I have returned!" [[User:John celona|John celona]] ([[User talk:John celona|talk]]) 23:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC) |
:: BRAVO to you! As General Macarthur said-"I have returned!" [[User:John celona|John celona]] ([[User talk:John celona|talk]]) 23:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
::: 1. You are not correct in stating that [[WP:BLP]] does not trump verifiable research -- it does. 2. You are, in fact, the one reinterpreting policy, which is pretty clear in terms of editing conservatively and trying to maintain privacy of semi-notable subjects. Especially when there is no clear benefit to the project to do otherwise. --[[User:Jkp212|Jkp212]] ([[User talk:Jkp212|talk]]) 23:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC) |
::: 1. You are not correct in stating that [[WP:BLP]] does not trump verifiable research -- it does. 2. You are, in fact, the one reinterpreting policy, which is pretty clear in terms of editing conservatively and trying to maintain privacy of semi-notable subjects. Especially when there is no clear benefit to the project to do otherwise. --[[User:Jkp212|Jkp212]] ([[User talk:Jkp212|talk]]) 23:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
::::Jkp12 is correct. [[WP:BLP]] does trump verifiability. It's there because not all available information is appropriate for Wikipedia. If you disagree, then I think you should go about trying to have [[WP:BLP]] rejected by the community, Dragon695. [[User talk:AniMate|< |
::::Jkp12 is correct. [[WP:BLP]] does trump verifiability. It's there because not all available information is appropriate for Wikipedia. If you disagree, then I think you should go about trying to have [[WP:BLP]] rejected by the community, Dragon695. [[User talk:AniMate|<span style="font-family:papyrus; color:Green;">Ani</span>]][[Special:Contributions/AniMate|<span style="font-family:papyrus; color:Black;">Mate</span>]] 00:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
:::::I totally agree on this. [[WP:BLP]] is fully respected here and violation of [[WP:POINT]] is utter nonsense. In his statement Dragon695 has clearly expressed that his real intentions are everything but neutral. But that is how articles should be written on any encyclopedia and on WP and not in a biased, ill-minded and ill-intentioned way. I apologize if I sound rude, but I am really upset about people like [[User:John celona|John celona]] and now [[User:Dragon695|Dragon695]] spinning words and rules that are agreed upon by the community just to appear as victims of censorship when in fact they are the 'culprits' vandalizing established rules. ([[User:Jamesbeat|Jamesbeat]] ([[User talk:Jamesbeat|talk]]) 12:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)) |
:::::I totally agree on this. [[WP:BLP]] is fully respected here and violation of [[WP:POINT]] is utter nonsense. In his statement Dragon695 has clearly expressed that his real intentions are everything but neutral. But that is how articles should be written on any encyclopedia and on WP and not in a biased, ill-minded and ill-intentioned way. I apologize if I sound rude, but I am really upset about people like [[User:John celona|John celona]] and now [[User:Dragon695|Dragon695]] spinning words and rules that are agreed upon by the community just to appear as victims of censorship when in fact they are the 'culprits' vandalizing established rules. ([[User:Jamesbeat|Jamesbeat]] ([[User talk:Jamesbeat|talk]]) 12:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)) |
||
::::::Care to make a point that is actually valid? [[WP:BLP]] is not universally accepted and there are still very contentious issues that still exist. The debates that happen on its talk page are rancorous and often very divisive. So I reject the notion that it has universal support, but that is besides the point. The bottom line is that actors in films, whether they be pornographic or not, do not get the same level of privacy that an average person does. It is their choice to become a notable subject. All of our biographies of actors who use pseudonyms list the real name. [[WP:NPOV]] does trump [[WP:BLP]] in that one class of actor will not be favored over another. Since you will not be successful in eliminating the real names in actors like [[Marilyn Manson]], you can not justify eliminating it a pornographic actor's biography. --[[User:Dragon695|Dragon695]] ([[User talk:Dragon695|talk]]) 22:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC) |
::::::Care to make a point that is actually valid? [[WP:BLP]] is not universally accepted and there are still very contentious issues that still exist. The debates that happen on its talk page are rancorous and often very divisive. So I reject the notion that it has universal support, but that is besides the point. The bottom line is that actors in films, whether they be pornographic or not, do not get the same level of privacy that an average person does. It is their choice to become a notable subject. All of our biographies of actors who use pseudonyms list the real name. [[WP:NPOV]] does trump [[WP:BLP]] in that one class of actor will not be favored over another. Since you will not be successful in eliminating the real names in actors like [[Marilyn Manson]], you can not justify eliminating it a pornographic actor's biography. --[[User:Dragon695|Dragon695]] ([[User talk:Dragon695|talk]]) 22:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
Line 163: | Line 193: | ||
::::I reinterpret nothing. It clearly leaves it open for discussion and the intent of preserving name privacy, as noted by the example '''court cases''', is mainly to deal with people who are victims or otherwise in positions of great danger. Porn actors are not inherently victims and thus should be treated like any other actor with a stage name -- we should list the real name. [[WP:NPOV]] demands that these class of actors get no different treatment than those who are non-pornographic actors. If you can argue why non-pornographic actors should have their real names listed and why pornographic actors should not, without violating [[WP:NPOV]], I am willing to listen. However, the discretion is clearly on a case by case basis and is left to the editor. I am willing to compromise in that I will endorse a temporary removal if there is documented evidence that an actor's live is in direct danger. What I will not accept is a blanket policy to omit all real names of actors with stage names. --[[User:Dragon695|Dragon695]] ([[User talk:Dragon695|talk]]) 22:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC) |
::::I reinterpret nothing. It clearly leaves it open for discussion and the intent of preserving name privacy, as noted by the example '''court cases''', is mainly to deal with people who are victims or otherwise in positions of great danger. Porn actors are not inherently victims and thus should be treated like any other actor with a stage name -- we should list the real name. [[WP:NPOV]] demands that these class of actors get no different treatment than those who are non-pornographic actors. If you can argue why non-pornographic actors should have their real names listed and why pornographic actors should not, without violating [[WP:NPOV]], I am willing to listen. However, the discretion is clearly on a case by case basis and is left to the editor. I am willing to compromise in that I will endorse a temporary removal if there is documented evidence that an actor's live is in direct danger. What I will not accept is a blanket policy to omit all real names of actors with stage names. --[[User:Dragon695|Dragon695]] ([[User talk:Dragon695|talk]]) 22:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
===Consensus?=== |
|||
Does this represent a consensus now?: |
Does this represent a consensus now?: |
||
Line 176: | Line 206: | ||
:I'm afraid answers.com is a Wikipedia content mirror. They take our content for many of the articles there. Best to not discriminate and just do like we do for all biographies of actors with pseudonyms. --[[User:Dragon695|Dragon695]] ([[User talk:Dragon695|talk]]) 22:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC) |
:I'm afraid answers.com is a Wikipedia content mirror. They take our content for many of the articles there. Best to not discriminate and just do like we do for all biographies of actors with pseudonyms. --[[User:Dragon695|Dragon695]] ([[User talk:Dragon695|talk]]) 22:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
'''Strong Oppose'''. Like I said above, [[WP:NPOV]] demands that we give no favoritism to certain classes of biographies. Actors are actors, they choose to be in the spotlight even if they use a ''stage name''. Being a porn actor is not a crime nor is it done unwillingly. The sense I get here is concern trolls who feel that porn actors are under some sort of extraordinary threat. I would argue that they are no more threatened than [[Marilyn Manson]]. We must have reliable, factual biographies so, like in the case of [[Marilyn Manson]], we will list the real name once in the lead section once a very reliable source for the name is found. This is standard biography writing 101 people. Again, [[WP:NPOV]] demands that we treat them no differently then any other actor with a pseudonym. --[[User:Dragon695|Dragon695]] ([[User talk:Dragon695|talk]]) 22:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC) |
'''Strong Oppose'''. Like I said above, [[WP:NPOV]] demands that we give no favoritism to certain classes of biographies. Actors are actors, they choose to be in the spotlight even if they use a ''stage name''. Being a porn actor is not a crime nor is it done unwillingly. The sense I get here is concern trolls who feel that porn actors are under some sort of extraordinary threat. I would argue that they are no more threatened than [[Marilyn Manson]]. We must have reliable, factual biographies so, like in the case of [[Marilyn Manson]], we will list the real name once in the lead section once a very reliable source for the name is found. This is standard biography writing 101 people. Again, [[WP:NPOV]] demands that we treat them no differently then any other actor with a pseudonym. --[[User:Dragon695|Dragon695]] ([[User talk:Dragon695|talk]]) 22:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
:I don't know if there is a consensus or not, but I think everyone can agree that these names need to be impeccably sourced. So far the names that were being fought over had awful sources. Most likely if really reliable sources have their names, they are notable for something outside of porn. It's not hard to find [[Marilyn Manson]]'s real name in a reliable source, or [[Tom Cruise]]. If we're talking about hunting down COPPA filings for Eastern European porn stars, then yes, that is a BLP violation. [[User talk:AniMate|< |
:I don't know if there is a consensus or not, but I think everyone can agree that these names need to be impeccably sourced. So far the names that were being fought over had awful sources. Most likely if really reliable sources have their names, they are notable for something outside of porn. It's not hard to find [[Marilyn Manson]]'s real name in a reliable source, or [[Tom Cruise]]. If we're talking about hunting down COPPA filings for Eastern European porn stars, then yes, that is a BLP violation. [[User talk:AniMate|<span style="font-family:papyrus; color:Green;">Ani</span>]][[Special:Contributions/AniMate|<span style="font-family:papyrus; color:Black;">Mate</span>]] 22:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
Reliable sources are in the eye of the beholder. No one gets too arbitrarily declare a source as unreliable, not even an admin can do that. Content disputes can and sometimes do go on forever. :[[User:Albion moonlight|Albion moonlight]] ([[User talk:Albion moonlight|talk]]) 23:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC) |
Reliable sources are in the eye of the beholder. No one gets too arbitrarily declare a source as unreliable, not even an admin can do that. Content disputes can and sometimes do go on forever. :[[User:Albion moonlight|Albion moonlight]] ([[User talk:Albion moonlight|talk]]) 23:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
:Fortunately, in this case the majority of the sources were blogs and lukeford.com which aren't considered reliable sources. There's nothing arbitrary about this, and if you'd investigated the background of this you'd see they're not reliable just like you'd see answers.com is a mirror of wikipedia. [[User talk:AniMate|< |
:Fortunately, in this case the majority of the sources were blogs and lukeford.com which aren't considered reliable sources. There's nothing arbitrary about this, and if you'd investigated the background of this you'd see they're not reliable just like you'd see answers.com is a mirror of wikipedia. [[User talk:AniMate|<span style="font-family:papyrus; color:Green;">Ani</span>]][[Special:Contributions/AniMate|<span style="font-family:papyrus; color:Black;">Mate</span>]] 23:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
:: I think (LOL) Washington Post is a pretty good source. That hasn't stopped the pro-censorship trolls. see [[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ty_Fox&diff=prev&oldid=220215721]]. [[User:John celona|John celona]] ([[User talk:John celona|talk]]) 00:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC) |
:: I think (LOL) Washington Post is a pretty good source. That hasn't stopped the pro-censorship trolls. see [[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ty_Fox&diff=prev&oldid=220215721]]. [[User:John celona|John celona]] ([[User talk:John celona|talk]]) 00:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
'''Strong Oppose''' To censor well-sourced (NY Times, washington Post, etc), widely disseminated names of actors is a rule only in David-pedia, not Wikipedia. Somebody needs to block this guy from manufacturing his own pro-censorship rules, falsely claiming "consensus" and then censoring all over Wikipedia with that spurious "consensus". An encyclopedia is about INCLUDING facts not censoring them. Save that for David-pedia. [[User:John celona|John celona]] ([[User talk:John celona|talk]]) 00:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC) |
'''Strong Oppose''' To censor well-sourced (NY Times, washington Post, etc), widely disseminated names of actors is a rule only in David-pedia, not Wikipedia. Somebody needs to block this guy from manufacturing his own pro-censorship rules, falsely claiming "consensus" and then censoring all over Wikipedia with that spurious "consensus". An encyclopedia is about INCLUDING facts not censoring them. Save that for David-pedia. [[User:John celona|John celona]] ([[User talk:John celona|talk]]) 00:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
:Here's an idea. Stop focusing on other editors and start focusing on the issues. "Pro-censorship trolls" and "David-pedia" don't help your argument at all. [[User talk:AniMate|< |
:Here's an idea. Stop focusing on other editors and start focusing on the issues. "Pro-censorship trolls" and "David-pedia" don't help your argument at all. [[User talk:AniMate|<span style="font-family:papyrus; color:Green;">Ani</span>]][[Special:Contributions/AniMate|<span style="font-family:papyrus; color:Black;">Mate</span>]] 00:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
:The case that I referenced above is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew_Watch here] : [[User:Albion moonlight|Albion moonlight]] ([[User talk:Albion moonlight|talk]]) 23:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC) |
:The case that I referenced above is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew_Watch here] : [[User:Albion moonlight|Albion moonlight]] ([[User talk:Albion moonlight|talk]]) 23:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
Actualy AniMate I have seen many examples of the opposite wherein Answers.com does not mirror Wikipedia. But even if I am wrong about that, reliable sources are in fact in the eye of the beholder. You can wikilawyer until you are blue in the face and quote wiki rules adinfinitum but the fact of the matter is that the arbitration committee does not decide content issues. and mediation is not binding. The only rules that are enforced by admin are ones pursuant to behavior. You have heard of the ignore all rules rule on wiki have you not.? It all comes down to consensus and civility. Excuse me now while I go and collect examples pursuant to the mirror theory. [[User:Albion moonlight|Albion moonlight]] ([[User talk:Albion moonlight|talk]]) 04:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC) |
Actualy AniMate I have seen many examples of the opposite wherein Answers.com does not mirror Wikipedia. But even if I am wrong about that, reliable sources are in fact in the eye of the beholder. You can wikilawyer until you are blue in the face and quote wiki rules adinfinitum but the fact of the matter is that the arbitration committee does not decide content issues. and mediation is not binding. The only rules that are enforced by admin are ones pursuant to behavior. You have heard of the ignore all rules rule on wiki have you not.? It all comes down to consensus and civility. Excuse me now while I go and collect examples pursuant to the mirror theory. [[User:Albion moonlight|Albion moonlight]] ([[User talk:Albion moonlight|talk]]) 04:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
: It does mirror Wikipedia, but unlike Wikipedia, it's not a Wiki that evolves in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_time real time]. That will allow for variations between the two platforms; however, each time this happens, answers.com catches up, and mirrors a more current Wikipedia version. --[[User:Jkp212|Jkp212]] ([[User talk:Jkp212|talk]]) 05:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC) |
: It does mirror Wikipedia, but unlike Wikipedia, it's not a Wiki that evolves in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_time real time]. That will allow for variations between the two platforms; however, each time this happens, answers.com catches up, and mirrors a more current Wikipedia version. --[[User:Jkp212|Jkp212]] ([[User talk:Jkp212|talk]]) 05:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
::I'm actually arguing against Jkp212 about letting a porn star's name being allowed in an article. [[Ty Fox]] has had extensive coverage in reliable sources like the Washington Post, sourcing birth names to blogs is just sloppy. [[User talk:AniMate|< |
::I'm actually arguing against Jkp212 about letting a porn star's name being allowed in an article. [[Ty Fox]] has had extensive coverage in reliable sources like the Washington Post, sourcing birth names to blogs is just sloppy. [[User talk:AniMate|<span style="font-family:papyrus; color:Green;">Ani</span>]][[Special:Contributions/AniMate|<span style="font-family:papyrus; color:Black;">Mate</span>]] 05:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
In general I agree with AniMate that sourcing birth names to blogs is sloppy, I do however think that there could very well be exceptions to any rule of thumb. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_%22Ignore_all_rules%22_means Here], is an example of what I have been trying to say. It is one of the Pillars of wikpedia. I prefer it when we all agree to adhere to it. :[[User:Albion moonlight|Albion moonlight]] ([[User talk:Albion moonlight|talk]]) 08:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC) |
In general I agree with AniMate that sourcing birth names to blogs is sloppy, I do however think that there could very well be exceptions to any rule of thumb. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_%22Ignore_all_rules%22_means Here], is an example of what I have been trying to say. It is one of the Pillars of wikpedia. I prefer it when we all agree to adhere to it. :[[User:Albion moonlight|Albion moonlight]] ([[User talk:Albion moonlight|talk]]) 08:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
*'''Related case''' [[Talk:Calpernia_Addams#Calpernia.27s_wishes]] and the fact that should the subject of an article express concerns about their birth name being included in their article the edits can be deleted and [[Wikipedia:OVERSIGHT|oversighted]]. Birth names of performers are encyclopedic information and if they can be reliably sourced then they should be included, unless there is demonstrable harm on a case-by-case basis. The notion that this particular type of performer requires some extra notability beyond that of their chosen profession is untenable. I am aware of no other class of articles, biographical or otherwise, that are required to meet this burden either for inclusion in the encyclopedia or for the inclusion a particular piece of encyclopedic information. [[User:Otto4711|Otto4711]] ([[User talk:Otto4711|talk]]) 18:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC) |
*'''Related case''' [[Talk:Calpernia_Addams#Calpernia.27s_wishes]] and the fact that should the subject of an article express concerns about their birth name being included in their article the edits can be deleted and [[Wikipedia:OVERSIGHT|oversighted]]. Birth names of performers are encyclopedic information and if they can be reliably sourced then they should be included, unless there is demonstrable harm on a case-by-case basis. The notion that this particular type of performer requires some extra notability beyond that of their chosen profession is untenable. I am aware of no other class of articles, biographical or otherwise, that are required to meet this burden either for inclusion in the encyclopedia or for the inclusion a particular piece of encyclopedic information. [[User:Otto4711|Otto4711]] ([[User talk:Otto4711|talk]]) 18:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
Line 200: | Line 230: | ||
:: Welcome to Wikipedia and do have fun while you are learning about how things really work here. [[User:Albion moonlight|Albion moonlight]] ([[User talk:Albion moonlight|talk]]) 00:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC) |
:: Welcome to Wikipedia and do have fun while you are learning about how things really work here. [[User:Albion moonlight|Albion moonlight]] ([[User talk:Albion moonlight|talk]]) 00:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
::: Thanks for the welcome. As a longstanding Wikipedian who has contributed significantly to most areas of Wikipedia policy, I'm surprised to find that I'm still considered a newcomer. --[[User talk:Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The|Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The]] 01:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC) |
::: Thanks for the welcome. As a longstanding Wikipedian who has contributed significantly to most areas of Wikipedia policy, I'm surprised to find that I'm still considered a newcomer. --[[User talk:Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The|Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The]] 01:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
:::: Well to be fair, unless someone knows to look for the link to your previous username, then you do appear to be relatively new. Still, the idea of using shoddy sources for controversial BLp issues is appalling. [[User:AniMate|< |
:::: Well to be fair, unless someone knows to look for the link to your previous username, then you do appear to be relatively new. Still, the idea of using shoddy sources for controversial BLp issues is appalling. [[User:AniMate|<span style="font-family:papyrus; color:Black;">A</span>]][[User talk:AniMate|<span style="font-family:papyrus; color:Green;">ni</span>]][[Special:Contributions/AniMate|<span style="font-family:papyrus; color:Black;">Mate</span>]] 01:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
Above, a couple of folks questioned whether Johan Paulik has, in fact been stalked. One has called trying to make sure WP doesn't become ''The Stalker's Handbook'' a silly endeavor. |
Above, a couple of folks questioned whether Johan Paulik has, in fact been stalked. One has called trying to make sure WP doesn't become ''The Stalker's Handbook'' a silly endeavor. |
||
Line 231: | Line 261: | ||
The case that I referenced above can be found [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew_Watch here] : [[User:Albion moonlight|Albion moonlight]] ([[User talk:Albion moonlight|talk]]) 23:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC) |
The case that I referenced above can be found [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew_Watch here] : [[User:Albion moonlight|Albion moonlight]] ([[User talk:Albion moonlight|talk]]) 23:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
:What is acceptable for an organization, is not necessarily acceptable for a living person. It is not acceptable to use such unverified speculation in biographies. [[User:FCYTravis|FCYTravis]] ([[User talk:FCYTravis|talk]]) 01:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC) |
:What is acceptable for an organization, is not necessarily acceptable for a living person. It is not acceptable to use such unverified speculation in biographies. [[User:FCYTravis|FCYTravis]] ([[User talk:FCYTravis|talk]]) 01:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
::This is awful. You're actively trying to figure out ways to skirt policy. Policy isn't in place to hamper editors, it's here to help editors and protect the encyclopedia. I think you should re-read BLP and attempt to explain your understanding of it, since you and John celona both seem to have any idea why the policy is there and what it actually means. [[User:AniMate|< |
::This is awful. You're actively trying to figure out ways to skirt policy. Policy isn't in place to hamper editors, it's here to help editors and protect the encyclopedia. I think you should re-read BLP and attempt to explain your understanding of it, since you and John celona both seem to have any idea why the policy is there and what it actually means. [[User:AniMate|<span style="font-family:papyrus; color:Black;">A</span>]][[User talk:AniMate|<span style="font-family:papyrus; color:Green;">ni</span>]][[Special:Contributions/AniMate|<span style="font-family:papyrus; color:Black;">Mate</span>]] 02:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
::: I am pointing out ways to get around what I and others view as a too narrow an interpretation of Blp policy. If Jimbo or one of those people in the upper most echelons want to keep the real names of pornstars a secret they have the power and the right to do so. The rest of us are stuck with business as usual. :[[User:Albion moonlight|Albion moonlight]] ([[User talk:Albion moonlight|talk]]) 05:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC) |
::: I am pointing out ways to get around what I and others view as a too narrow an interpretation of Blp policy. If Jimbo or one of those people in the upper most echelons want to keep the real names of pornstars a secret they have the power and the right to do so. The rest of us are stuck with business as usual. :[[User:Albion moonlight|Albion moonlight]] ([[User talk:Albion moonlight|talk]]) 05:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
::::If BLP disallows something, the solution isn't to try and find a back door way to sneak around the policy - it's to leave the material out. Trying to Wikilawyer BLP is not a smart idea. [[User:FCYTravis|FCYTravis]] ([[User talk:FCYTravis|talk]]) 05:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC) |
::::If BLP disallows something, the solution isn't to try and find a back door way to sneak around the policy - it's to leave the material out. Trying to Wikilawyer BLP is not a smart idea. [[User:FCYTravis|FCYTravis]] ([[User talk:FCYTravis|talk]]) 05:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
Line 237: | Line 267: | ||
: It's definitely not a good idea to try to ''circumvent'' our policies. Although I've no doubt you don't intend anything underhanded, it's difficult for an administrator viewing your edits to work out whether or not you are engaging in a disruptive form of editing known as [[Wikipedia:Gaming the system|Gaming the system]]. Even if an administrator doesn't take action, other editors may begin to lose trust in you and, ultimately, in Wikipedia. Readers will see the weasel words in an article and lose faith. It's better to search for solid, unimpeachable information, if it exists, and cite it when you find it, being prepared to change your mind if your judgement is overruled. We all submit to this standard, nobody is asking you to do something that isn't expected of all of us. --[[User talk:RegenerateThis|Jenny]] 05:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC) |
: It's definitely not a good idea to try to ''circumvent'' our policies. Although I've no doubt you don't intend anything underhanded, it's difficult for an administrator viewing your edits to work out whether or not you are engaging in a disruptive form of editing known as [[Wikipedia:Gaming the system|Gaming the system]]. Even if an administrator doesn't take action, other editors may begin to lose trust in you and, ultimately, in Wikipedia. Readers will see the weasel words in an article and lose faith. It's better to search for solid, unimpeachable information, if it exists, and cite it when you find it, being prepared to change your mind if your judgement is overruled. We all submit to this standard, nobody is asking you to do something that isn't expected of all of us. --[[User talk:RegenerateThis|Jenny]] 05:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
:: NB: Until recently I edited Wikipedia using the account "[[User talk:Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The|Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The]]" --[[User talk:RegenerateThis|Jenny]] 05:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC) |
:: NB: Until recently I edited Wikipedia using the account "[[User talk:Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The|Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The]]" --[[User talk:RegenerateThis|Jenny]] 05:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
===Section break, again=== |
|||
I must agree with Jenny (at least that's the current signature). Why you think this is such necessary information, I don't know, but you do. Again, [[WP:BLP]] is here to protect not only the subjects of articles, but it's also here to protect us. When it comes to real people, we have to be careful, thoughftul, and patient. It's really all summed up by this: |
I must agree with Jenny (at least that's the current signature). Why you think this is such necessary information, I don't know, but you do. Again, [[WP:BLP]] is here to protect not only the subjects of articles, but it's also here to protect us. When it comes to real people, we have to be careful, thoughftul, and patient. It's really all summed up by this: |
||
:''I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons. |
:''I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons. |
||
:''–Jimmy Wales [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-May/046440.html] |
:''–Jimmy Wales [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-May/046440.html] |
||
Pseudo information includes spurious claims from questionable websites. Clear enough? [[User:AniMate|< |
Pseudo information includes spurious claims from questionable websites. Clear enough? [[User:AniMate|<span style="font-family:papyrus; color:Black;">A</span>]][[User talk:AniMate|<span style="font-family:papyrus; color:Green;">ni</span>]][[Special:Contributions/AniMate|<span style="font-family:papyrus; color:Black;">Mate</span>]] 06:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
::::So go ahead and delete them where you find them and lets see what the rest of wiki has to say about it. I can live with a wiki that disallows all mention of a pornstars real names. But for some reason some of you seem unwilling to live with a wikipedia that does allow it. Anyway I am through with this discussion because it only seems to be going in circles. I assure you that I will not edit war with you or encourage others to do so. If one of those articles goes to an Rfc or to mediation or even arbitration I may join in. But as for this discussion if I am the only one blocking consensus (and I am one of 3 or 4], I hereby withdraw my dissent and agree to disagree. Best wishes to everyone.: [[User:Albion moonlight|Albion moonlight]] ([[User talk:Albion moonlight|talk]]) 07:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC) |
::::So go ahead and delete them where you find them and lets see what the rest of wiki has to say about it. I can live with a wiki that disallows all mention of a pornstars real names. But for some reason some of you seem unwilling to live with a wikipedia that does allow it. Anyway I am through with this discussion because it only seems to be going in circles. I assure you that I will not edit war with you or encourage others to do so. If one of those articles goes to an Rfc or to mediation or even arbitration I may join in. But as for this discussion if I am the only one blocking consensus (and I am one of 3 or 4], I hereby withdraw my dissent and agree to disagree. Best wishes to everyone.: [[User:Albion moonlight|Albion moonlight]] ([[User talk:Albion moonlight|talk]]) 07:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
I don't particularly like the idea of censoring real names of actors commonly known by their stage names based on what type of film they perform in. That doesn't follow me as particularly logical, and it seems to me like a gross violation of the principle of a neutral point of view toward which we are supposed to be striving toward. |
I don't particularly like the idea of censoring real names of actors commonly known by their stage names based on what type of film they perform in. That doesn't follow me as particularly logical, and it seems to me like a gross violation of the principle of a neutral point of view toward which we are supposed to be striving toward. |
||
Naturally, if there's only sketchy information available (like citations on blogs), then it should be removed, just like any information that can't be reliably sourced should be; but the idea of removing information that can be reliably sourced simply because someone doesn't like it and tried to hide it really rubs me the wrong way. This isn't a case like [[Genie (feral child)|Genie]] (where I also argued for the inclusion of the real name), where the subject at least didn't have a choice about the things that made her notable; this is a case where someone has intentionally sought notability and has had to suffer the consequences of living life that way. Having your identity known widely can be one of the prices of that, and it isn't our place to be unnecessarily sympathetic towards peoples' problems at the expense of the usefulness of the project. < |
Naturally, if there's only sketchy information available (like citations on blogs), then it should be removed, just like any information that can't be reliably sourced should be; but the idea of removing information that can be reliably sourced simply because someone doesn't like it and tried to hide it really rubs me the wrong way. This isn't a case like [[Genie (feral child)|Genie]] (where I also argued for the inclusion of the real name), where the subject at least didn't have a choice about the things that made her notable; this is a case where someone has intentionally sought notability and has had to suffer the consequences of living life that way. Having your identity known widely can be one of the prices of that, and it isn't our place to be unnecessarily sympathetic towards peoples' problems at the expense of the usefulness of the project. [[User:Celarnor|<b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b>]] [[User_talk:Celarnor|<sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me</sup>]] 06:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC) |
||
:You're right people make choices and have to live with the consequences. If someone chooses a career and tries to hide their name but it comes out in multiple reliable secondary sources, then so be it. But the question is, should we at wikipedia be spreading information that isn't already widely available? The answer IMHO is no. And actually I for one don't care whether they are porn actors, scientists or internet celebrities. It is not our job to dig out information from primary sources and tell the world because information wants to be free (or whatever). It does get a little more complicated when we have a person who has been widely covered but who's name is only sourced to one albeit reliable secondary source and I won't discuss this sort of case for now. And definitely if the information is widely covered in secondary sources, then I would have no problem with the information being included, whatever the wishes of the subject. But using primary sources to uncover information not already cited in secondary sources reaks of OR and a privacy violation to me. P.S. I agree the Genie case, which I argued against inclusion of the real name is different in character and doesn't add much to this discussion [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 16:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC) |
:You're right people make choices and have to live with the consequences. If someone chooses a career and tries to hide their name but it comes out in multiple reliable secondary sources, then so be it. But the question is, should we at wikipedia be spreading information that isn't already widely available? The answer IMHO is no. And actually I for one don't care whether they are porn actors, scientists or internet celebrities. It is not our job to dig out information from primary sources and tell the world because information wants to be free (or whatever). It does get a little more complicated when we have a person who has been widely covered but who's name is only sourced to one albeit reliable secondary source and I won't discuss this sort of case for now. And definitely if the information is widely covered in secondary sources, then I would have no problem with the information being included, whatever the wishes of the subject. But using primary sources to uncover information not already cited in secondary sources reaks of OR and a privacy violation to me. P.S. I agree the Genie case, which I argued against inclusion of the real name is different in character and doesn't add much to this discussion [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 16:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC) |
||
Line 258: | Line 288: | ||
::I'd much rather see something referenced by primary sources than something by secondary sources, especially with regards to things that may be controversial; using a primary source allows us to look just at the facts; not at the biases, the prose of people another layer disconnected from the facts, but just the relevant facts. Primary sources are fine for simple, descriptive claims; i.e, some presidents have made their tax returns publicly available, "This person claimed this on their taxes"; there is absolutely nothing wrong with citing a publicly-available tax return for that; I think it would be preferable to do that than to cite a secondary report on it, since we're closer to the information that way and less open to re-reporting bias, which should always be avoided. It's only a problem when you have to use [[WP:SYN|synthesis]] to get an article out of it. |
::I'd much rather see something referenced by primary sources than something by secondary sources, especially with regards to things that may be controversial; using a primary source allows us to look just at the facts; not at the biases, the prose of people another layer disconnected from the facts, but just the relevant facts. Primary sources are fine for simple, descriptive claims; i.e, some presidents have made their tax returns publicly available, "This person claimed this on their taxes"; there is absolutely nothing wrong with citing a publicly-available tax return for that; I think it would be preferable to do that than to cite a secondary report on it, since we're closer to the information that way and less open to re-reporting bias, which should always be avoided. It's only a problem when you have to use [[WP:SYN|synthesis]] to get an article out of it. |
||
::If something is available in a database and it straight-out tells you what someone's name is with zero or near-zero doubt, then it shouldn't matter whether it's a trademark application or an article in the New York Times; they both serve the same function. < |
::If something is available in a database and it straight-out tells you what someone's name is with zero or near-zero doubt, then it shouldn't matter whether it's a trademark application or an article in the New York Times; they both serve the same function. [[User:Celarnor|<b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b>]] [[User_talk:Celarnor|<sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me</sup>]] 22:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC) |
||
:::But then the database has to be reliably sourced, hasn't it? The IMDb for instance is anything but a reliable database when it comes to adult films. Wrong data and stage names on movie pages, actors incorrectly listed in films they don't appear in, wrong ID connections as well as no source given where the biographical data originates from. So why should this information be accepted when it is in fact based on the same sketchy information that is not regarded as a reliable source by Wikipedia standards? ([[User:Jamesbeat|Jamesbeat]] ([[User talk:Jamesbeat|talk]]) 09:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)) |
:::But then the database has to be reliably sourced, hasn't it? The IMDb for instance is anything but a reliable database when it comes to adult films. Wrong data and stage names on movie pages, actors incorrectly listed in films they don't appear in, wrong ID connections as well as no source given where the biographical data originates from. So why should this information be accepted when it is in fact based on the same sketchy information that is not regarded as a reliable source by Wikipedia standards? ([[User:Jamesbeat|Jamesbeat]] ([[User talk:Jamesbeat|talk]]) 09:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)) |
||
::I don't think that using Imdb is what Celanor is talking about but I do know that there are ways of covering wiki's butt and still using IMDb and or other such sources. The question then becomes should we do so? I think that each case should be taken on its own merits. But there are others here that strongly disagree. [[User:Albion moonlight|Albion moonlight]] ([[User talk:Albion moonlight|talk]]) 11:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC) |
::I don't think that using Imdb is what Celanor is talking about but I do know that there are ways of covering wiki's butt and still using IMDb and or other such sources. The question then becomes should we do so? I think that each case should be taken on its own merits. But there are others here that strongly disagree. [[User:Albion moonlight|Albion moonlight]] ([[User talk:Albion moonlight|talk]]) 11:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC) |
||
::::That's not what I was referring to. First, the IMDB isn't a reliable source; it accepts user-generated content. Second, it isn't a primary source. With regards to film, a primary source would be the film itself (i.e, using the film's ending credits as a source for who was in the film or something else that is very, very obvious restatement of fact). I was talking about public (read: government-maintained) databases of public information, like lists of non-profit charities, trademark applications, and the like. < |
::::That's not what I was referring to. First, the IMDB isn't a reliable source; it accepts user-generated content. Second, it isn't a primary source. With regards to film, a primary source would be the film itself (i.e, using the film's ending credits as a source for who was in the film or something else that is very, very obvious restatement of fact). I was talking about public (read: government-maintained) databases of public information, like lists of non-profit charities, trademark applications, and the like. [[User:Celarnor|<b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b>]] [[User_talk:Celarnor|<sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me</sup>]] 16:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC) |
||
:Yes thats what I thought you were saying. I think your idea is a good one. [[User:Albion moonlight|Albion moonlight]] ([[User talk:Albion moonlight|talk]]) 00:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC) |
:Yes thats what I thought you were saying. I think your idea is a good one. [[User:Albion moonlight|Albion moonlight]] ([[User talk:Albion moonlight|talk]]) 00:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC) |
||
Line 276: | Line 306: | ||
91.84.204.125|91.84.204.125 was warned by 4 editors of vandalism and flame warring a month before my edit of his non-neural words like "fascist" "follower of fascistr", "admirer of Hitler", "Forty Years of Involvement with Fascism" plus collusion with a distateful editor and author. All untrue terms which I attempted to neutralize in accordance with POV and civility Wiki policies. 91.84.204.125|91.84.204.125 has called the editors of the talk page idiots. My gripe is that his facts are untrue and distorted. This user has a personal grudge against this well-regarded, highly respected living author. 91.84.204.125|91.84.204.125 has also posted threats as if he was an administrator on my User pager (see History). He blanks out his own User Talk and often refuses to sign his anonomous posts in an attempt to thwart undo. My first course of action to him was a polite note and a copy of the Wiki notice about living authors on the top of the talk page which only served to encourage his loaded terms. Thanks for your time. [[User:SageMab|SageMab]] ([[User talk:SageMab|talk]]) 00:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC) |
91.84.204.125|91.84.204.125 was warned by 4 editors of vandalism and flame warring a month before my edit of his non-neural words like "fascist" "follower of fascistr", "admirer of Hitler", "Forty Years of Involvement with Fascism" plus collusion with a distateful editor and author. All untrue terms which I attempted to neutralize in accordance with POV and civility Wiki policies. 91.84.204.125|91.84.204.125 has called the editors of the talk page idiots. My gripe is that his facts are untrue and distorted. This user has a personal grudge against this well-regarded, highly respected living author. 91.84.204.125|91.84.204.125 has also posted threats as if he was an administrator on my User pager (see History). He blanks out his own User Talk and often refuses to sign his anonomous posts in an attempt to thwart undo. My first course of action to him was a polite note and a copy of the Wiki notice about living authors on the top of the talk page which only served to encourage his loaded terms. Thanks for your time. [[User:SageMab|SageMab]] ([[User talk:SageMab|talk]]) 00:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC) |
||
===Section break, one more=== |
|||
Once a performer gives up a pseudonym in an interview, or even writes something like an autobiography to sell in mass media ads, |
Once a performer gives up a pseudonym in an interview, or even writes something like an autobiography to sell in mass media ads, |
||
Line 408: | Line 438: | ||
::'''We should also establish a flagged revision editing system on biographies of living persons just like it's done on the German Wikipedia''', maybe with a twist that is no publication without oversight of an experienced editor (registered user with an X amount of edits, who's account is then responsible for the approval, that should put an end to anonymous [[WP:BLP]] violations). As for a nicer wording I'd humbly like to request the help of a native English speaker. ;) [[User:3vil-Lyn|3vil-Lyn]] ([[User talk:3vil-Lyn|talk]]) 00:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC) |
::'''We should also establish a flagged revision editing system on biographies of living persons just like it's done on the German Wikipedia''', maybe with a twist that is no publication without oversight of an experienced editor (registered user with an X amount of edits, who's account is then responsible for the approval, that should put an end to anonymous [[WP:BLP]] violations). As for a nicer wording I'd humbly like to request the help of a native English speaker. ;) [[User:3vil-Lyn|3vil-Lyn]] ([[User talk:3vil-Lyn|talk]]) 00:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC) |
||
===Proposal for a vote=== |
|||
There appear to be two views here. One that porn stars' real names can and should be added to all articles, the other that they should not be added except in specific circumstances. |
There appear to be two views here. One that porn stars' real names can and should be added to all articles, the other that they should not be added except in specific circumstances. |
||
Line 428: | Line 458: | ||
:::Those editors were blatantly violating reliable source standards for BLPs and conducting original research then. The issue of using legal documents is a good point. Perhaps a statement indicating that compromising information, such as true identity, may not be tied to original sources, but instead must appear in a reliable, synthetic source like a magazine or newspaper. Wikipedia editors should leave the investigative journalism to the professionals. [[User:Gimme danger|Gimme danger]] ([[User talk:Gimme danger|talk]]) 14:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC) |
:::Those editors were blatantly violating reliable source standards for BLPs and conducting original research then. The issue of using legal documents is a good point. Perhaps a statement indicating that compromising information, such as true identity, may not be tied to original sources, but instead must appear in a reliable, synthetic source like a magazine or newspaper. Wikipedia editors should leave the investigative journalism to the professionals. [[User:Gimme danger|Gimme danger]] ([[User talk:Gimme danger|talk]]) 14:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC) |
||
*'''Oppose'''... ''respecting'' their privacy should not be our concern. The only thing that should concern us is that it has been reported in a '''reliable, verifiable''' source. Perhaps the wording in [[WP:V]], [[WP:RS]], and [[WP:BLP]] needs to be strengthened in that respect, however the fundamental problem is inevitable. People think "ZOMG1!1 I can edit this, guess what I just heard... everyone needs to hear this." What needs to happen, in my opinion, is more of a strict application of current policy in excising information that cannot be reliably sourced. Maybe add a section to [[WP:BLP]] stating that a person's connection to their pseudonym needs an inline reliable source, and it should be removed without one (as opposed to adding {{tl|fact}} to it). --[[User:Storkk|Storkk]] ([[User talk:Storkk|talk]]) 10:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC) |
*'''Oppose'''... ''respecting'' their privacy should not be our concern. The only thing that should concern us is that it has been reported in a '''reliable, verifiable''' source. Perhaps the wording in [[WP:V]], [[WP:RS]], and [[WP:BLP]] needs to be strengthened in that respect, however the fundamental problem is inevitable. People think "ZOMG1!1 I can edit this, guess what I just heard... everyone needs to hear this." What needs to happen, in my opinion, is more of a strict application of current policy in excising information that cannot be reliably sourced. Maybe add a section to [[WP:BLP]] stating that a person's connection to their pseudonym needs an inline reliable source, and it should be removed without one (as opposed to adding {{tl|fact}} to it). --[[User:Storkk|Storkk]] ([[User talk:Storkk|talk]]) 10:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC) |
||
*'''Oppose''' - If their real name can be [[wp:verifiable|verified]] by strong independent sources (not forums and blogs) and is already publicly known then it should be added. However, if they are only notable under their pseudonym and their real name cannot be [[wp:verifiable|verified]] then it should not be added. [[Special:Contributions/Ғїяеѕкатея|< |
*'''Oppose''' - If their real name can be [[wp:verifiable|verified]] by strong independent sources (not forums and blogs) and is already publicly known then it should be added. However, if they are only notable under their pseudonym and their real name cannot be [[wp:verifiable|verified]] then it should not be added. [[Special:Contributions/Ғїяеѕкатея|<span style="color:#FF17FF;">Ғїяе</span><span style="color:#FF4800;">ѕка</span><span style="color:#FF1C00;">тея</span>]]<b><sup>[[User talk:Ғїяеѕкатея|talk]]</sup></b> 12:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC) |
||
*'''Extremely strong oppose''' - If information can be verified, it should be included. Wikipedia is not a PR agency. We need to drop this self-important sense of being mighty gate-keepers of knowledge and only letting the little people know what it is appropriate for the little people to know. If it can be verified, it can be included! We're certainly not "outing" anyone if the information has already appeared in something we consider a reliable source. How is it even possible to make that argument? We are an encyclopedia, not a private security service. '''[[User:Mr. IP|< |
*'''Extremely strong oppose''' - If information can be verified, it should be included. Wikipedia is not a PR agency. We need to drop this self-important sense of being mighty gate-keepers of knowledge and only letting the little people know what it is appropriate for the little people to know. If it can be verified, it can be included! We're certainly not "outing" anyone if the information has already appeared in something we consider a reliable source. How is it even possible to make that argument? We are an encyclopedia, not a private security service. '''[[User:Mr. IP|<span style="color:blue;">Mr. IP</span>]]''' '''《[[User_talk:Mr. IP|<span style="color:red;">Defender of Open Editing</span>]]》''' 01:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC) |
||
*'''Comment''' '''[[Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion]]''' |
*'''Comment''' '''[[Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion]]''' |
||
Line 535: | Line 565: | ||
*'''Oppose''' The birth name of a notable public figure is considered encyclopedic information and is included in traditional encyclopedias' biographies, and it is equally encyclopedic in Wikipedia. Someone who launches a career as a movie actor is inherently seeking to be a public figure, and their life story (where and when born, birth name, education, life experiences) are as relevant to their story as those of [[Marilyn Monroe]] being born as "Norma Jean" was when she was alive. But any information about a living person must be [[WP:V|verifiable]] via [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. A blog generally does not qualify and IMDB does not qualify. Wikipedia is not an "outing" site to make public that which is not easily obtainable public knowledge. If the actor's birth name is published in Newsweek or the New York Times, it is readily available public knowledge, and no one can undo the ringing of the bell. It should be added to the article, unless there are unusual and compelling reasons not to. I can't think of any, except legal process. If someone claims to have found it from an adoption record, an obscure court document, a baptism record in a church. a real estate transaction, a property tax record, or similar records which are not widely available, and which are original research, it should not be included. We should not act as amateur private detectives, rooting out obscure information and publishing it, and we should not mirror little known blogs which do the same thing. Many such associations have been found to be incorrect, and are as dubious as much genealogical research. This falls under the "do no harm" notion, while adding a New York Times reference in fact does no harm beyond any done when the name was published there. There is no general policy of allowing the subject of an article to edit it, so as to leave in text which increases video sales or pay for appearing in films, but leave out text which includes reliably referenced biographical details in what purports to be a biography. That sounds more like a vanity biography site where people pay to have the desired biographical details published. I have questioned the notability of porn actors in several AFDs, and see many of the "bio" articles as unjustified efforts by the actors or the video producers to use Wikipedia as a promotional medium. If someone leaves the porn actor trade and requests deletion of their article, I would in some cases favor the deletion in AFD, unless they are truly notable as is [[Harry Reems]]. Their notability in some field outside their porn actor career seems totally irrelevant as a deciding factor for whether their birth name should be included. [[User:Edison|Edison]] ([[User talk:Edison|talk]]) 03:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC) |
*'''Oppose''' The birth name of a notable public figure is considered encyclopedic information and is included in traditional encyclopedias' biographies, and it is equally encyclopedic in Wikipedia. Someone who launches a career as a movie actor is inherently seeking to be a public figure, and their life story (where and when born, birth name, education, life experiences) are as relevant to their story as those of [[Marilyn Monroe]] being born as "Norma Jean" was when she was alive. But any information about a living person must be [[WP:V|verifiable]] via [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. A blog generally does not qualify and IMDB does not qualify. Wikipedia is not an "outing" site to make public that which is not easily obtainable public knowledge. If the actor's birth name is published in Newsweek or the New York Times, it is readily available public knowledge, and no one can undo the ringing of the bell. It should be added to the article, unless there are unusual and compelling reasons not to. I can't think of any, except legal process. If someone claims to have found it from an adoption record, an obscure court document, a baptism record in a church. a real estate transaction, a property tax record, or similar records which are not widely available, and which are original research, it should not be included. We should not act as amateur private detectives, rooting out obscure information and publishing it, and we should not mirror little known blogs which do the same thing. Many such associations have been found to be incorrect, and are as dubious as much genealogical research. This falls under the "do no harm" notion, while adding a New York Times reference in fact does no harm beyond any done when the name was published there. There is no general policy of allowing the subject of an article to edit it, so as to leave in text which increases video sales or pay for appearing in films, but leave out text which includes reliably referenced biographical details in what purports to be a biography. That sounds more like a vanity biography site where people pay to have the desired biographical details published. I have questioned the notability of porn actors in several AFDs, and see many of the "bio" articles as unjustified efforts by the actors or the video producers to use Wikipedia as a promotional medium. If someone leaves the porn actor trade and requests deletion of their article, I would in some cases favor the deletion in AFD, unless they are truly notable as is [[Harry Reems]]. Their notability in some field outside their porn actor career seems totally irrelevant as a deciding factor for whether their birth name should be included. [[User:Edison|Edison]] ([[User talk:Edison|talk]]) 03:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC) |
||
*'''oppose as written''' Among other issues it isn't at all clear to me that all porn stars use pseudonyms to keep their real names hidden. I imagine a name like Bertha Bergensteinshwaltz just wouldn't go over well in porn (I just made that name up, I really hope no one has that name). Moreover, when a name is given in many easily accessible reliable sources there's no good reason for us to cover it up. There may be occasional situations where there is some obscure reliable source for the real name. Those cases can be dealt with in a case by case basis. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 18:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
===Can we refocus the discussion?=== |
|||
*'''Comment''' I don't believe a 'vote' is helpful here and in any case the issue seems to be distracting from the original point. This discussion original arose (I believe) and definitely it was resurrected for a second time because several edits, including me, are against the use of primary sources, particularly stuff like trademark documents & unreliable secondary sources like blogs, to identify the real name of someone (for me at least, I don't care whether they are pornographic actors or politicians or whoever) when that real name has not already been published in reliable secondary sources. To me, this reeks of OR and is likely a privacy violation and therefore a violation of BLP. While I think we have consensus on the blog part, several people in particular Celarnor and Albion moonlight feel that there is nothing wrong with using primary sources of this sort ("public (read: government-maintained) databases of public information") to identify the real names of people who's real name has not yet been published in a reliable secondary source. While I appreciate what Filceolaire & 3vil-Lyn are trying to do and in fact I'm mildly supportive of the idea I've never advocated it since I've suspected and this discussion confirms that there is unlikely to be much support of the idea (in any case, I"m not sure if this is the best place to discuss a BLP policy change). I suggest we get back to the original point. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 06:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC) |
*'''Comment''' I don't believe a 'vote' is helpful here and in any case the issue seems to be distracting from the original point. This discussion original arose (I believe) and definitely it was resurrected for a second time because several edits, including me, are against the use of primary sources, particularly stuff like trademark documents & unreliable secondary sources like blogs, to identify the real name of someone (for me at least, I don't care whether they are pornographic actors or politicians or whoever) when that real name has not already been published in reliable secondary sources. To me, this reeks of OR and is likely a privacy violation and therefore a violation of BLP. While I think we have consensus on the blog part, several people in particular Celarnor and Albion moonlight feel that there is nothing wrong with using primary sources of this sort ("public (read: government-maintained) databases of public information") to identify the real names of people who's real name has not yet been published in a reliable secondary source. While I appreciate what Filceolaire & 3vil-Lyn are trying to do and in fact I'm mildly supportive of the idea I've never advocated it since I've suspected and this discussion confirms that there is unlikely to be much support of the idea (in any case, I"m not sure if this is the best place to discuss a BLP policy change). I suggest we get back to the original point. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 06:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC) |
||
::Feel free to lead the way. I'm just here for the popcorn. and the occasional chat [[User:Albion moonlight|Albion moonlight]] ([[User talk:Albion moonlight|talk]]) 09:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC) |
::Feel free to lead the way. I'm just here for the popcorn. and the occasional chat [[User:Albion moonlight|Albion moonlight]] ([[User talk:Albion moonlight|talk]]) 09:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC) |
||
Line 552: | Line 583: | ||
and have their consensus. Consensus is very unlikely at this point but perhaps Jimbo's opinion will cause others to rethink their position . [[User:Albion moonlight|Albion moonlight]] ([[User talk:Albion moonlight|talk]]) 06:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC) |
and have their consensus. Consensus is very unlikely at this point but perhaps Jimbo's opinion will cause others to rethink their position . [[User:Albion moonlight|Albion moonlight]] ([[User talk:Albion moonlight|talk]]) 06:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC) |
||
===http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Clyda-Rosen A reliable source ?=== |
|||
It looks like one to me, but let us hear from some of the others before I add it to the article [[User:Albion moonlight|Albion moonlight]] ([[User talk:Albion moonlight|talk]]) 02:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC) |
It looks like one to me, but let us hear from some of the others before I add it to the article [[User:Albion moonlight|Albion moonlight]] ([[User talk:Albion moonlight|talk]]) 02:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC) |
||
It has recieved laudits from The NY Times. [[User:Albion moonlight|Albion moonlight]] ([[User talk:Albion moonlight|talk]]) 03:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC) |
It has recieved laudits from The NY Times. [[User:Albion moonlight|Albion moonlight]] ([[User talk:Albion moonlight|talk]]) 03:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC) |
||
:Isn't that a Wikipedia mirror? [[User:AniMate|< |
:Isn't that a Wikipedia mirror? [[User:AniMate|<span style="font-family:papyrus; color:Black;">A</span>]][[User talk:AniMate|<span style="font-family:papyrus; color:Green;">ni</span>]][[Special:Contributions/AniMate|<span style="font-family:papyrus; color:Black;">Mate</span>]] 03:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC) |
||
::Yes, yes it is. From approximately this [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Clyda_Rosen&diff=next&oldid=143491760 verson]. [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] ([[User talk:Dragons flight|talk]]) 03:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC) |
::Yes, yes it is. From approximately this [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Clyda_Rosen&diff=next&oldid=143491760 verson]. [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] ([[User talk:Dragons flight|talk]]) 03:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC) |
||
Line 561: | Line 592: | ||
I am not going to get my hopes up on that one. I was doing a google search when I found it. Thanks for the info. [[User:Albion moonlight|Albion moonlight]] ([[User talk:Albion moonlight|talk]]) 06:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC) |
I am not going to get my hopes up on that one. I was doing a google search when I found it. Thanks for the info. [[User:Albion moonlight|Albion moonlight]] ([[User talk:Albion moonlight|talk]]) 06:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC) |
||
===[[IMDB]] and [[Luke Ford]]'s blog=== |
|||
[[Suzy Mandel]]'s article has two sources for her birth name: Luke Ford's blog and IMDb. Neither is a [[WP:RS]]. I've reverted her birth name on that basis. Even if we can't agree that intentionally obscured birth names should not be posted, surely we can agree that, if they are to be posted, they must be reliably sourced. [[User:David in DC|David in DC]] ([[User talk:David in DC|talk]]) 23:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC) |
[[Suzy Mandel]]'s article has two sources for her birth name: Luke Ford's blog and IMDb. Neither is a [[WP:RS]]. I've reverted her birth name on that basis. Even if we can't agree that intentionally obscured birth names should not be posted, surely we can agree that, if they are to be posted, they must be reliably sourced. [[User:David in DC|David in DC]] ([[User talk:David in DC|talk]]) 23:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC) |
||
:Agreed (unsurprisingly). Any controversial claim, and revealing a birth name that has intentionally obscured is controversial, must have an excellent [[WP:RS|reliable source]]. [[User:AniMate|< |
:Agreed (unsurprisingly). Any controversial claim, and revealing a birth name that has intentionally obscured is controversial, must have an excellent [[WP:RS|reliable source]]. [[User:AniMate|<span style="font-family:papyrus; color:Black;">A</span>]][[User talk:AniMate|<span style="font-family:papyrus; color:Green;">ni</span>]][[Special:Contributions/AniMate|<span style="font-family:papyrus; color:Black;">Mate</span>]] 23:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC) |
||
:::And then again, what if [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Suzy_Mandel#At_the_very_least.2C_birth_names_must_be_reliably_sourced this claim ] is true. It will be interesting to see how Jimbo and on the other elites handle that one. Perhaps Ms Mandell will know of a source that will satisfy eveyone. [[User:Albion moonlight|Albion moonlight]] ([[User talk:Albion moonlight|talk]]) 07:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC) |
:::And then again, what if [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Suzy_Mandel#At_the_very_least.2C_birth_names_must_be_reliably_sourced this claim ] is true. It will be interesting to see how Jimbo and on the other elites handle that one. Perhaps Ms Mandell will know of a source that will satisfy eveyone. [[User:Albion moonlight|Albion moonlight]] ([[User talk:Albion moonlight|talk]]) 07:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC) |
||
=== Primary sources, such as trademark documents and COPPA filings, are [[WP:RS]] === |
|||
We are not here to protect the potential future of adult actors nor are we here to take a position of whether one should be ashamed of being one. They, like any other live performer, will have their real names in addition to pseudonyms if [[WP:RS]] are available. That includes official legal documentation. Period, end of discussion. As to Jimbo's question, well it is a matter of consistency and a matter of correctness. This whole thing smacks of some attempt by the forces of chastity and prudery to somehow insert their contention that it is wrong and bad to be a pornographic actor. We are not here to make such determinations, therefore we will publish the facts as best can be determined through proper sourcing. --[[User:Dragon695|Dragon695]] ([[User talk:Dragon695|talk]]) 22:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC) |
We are not here to protect the potential future of adult actors nor are we here to take a position of whether one should be ashamed of being one. They, like any other live performer, will have their real names in addition to pseudonyms if [[WP:RS]] are available. That includes official legal documentation. Period, end of discussion. As to Jimbo's question, well it is a matter of consistency and a matter of correctness. This whole thing smacks of some attempt by the forces of chastity and prudery to somehow insert their contention that it is wrong and bad to be a pornographic actor. We are not here to make such determinations, therefore we will publish the facts as best can be determined through proper sourcing. --[[User:Dragon695|Dragon695]] ([[User talk:Dragon695|talk]]) 22:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
:Read [[WP:PRIMARY]] please. [[User:AniMate|< |
:Read [[WP:PRIMARY]] please. [[User:AniMate|<span style="font-family:papyrus; color:Black;">A</span>]][[Special:Contributions/AniMate|<span style="font-family:papyrus; color:Green;">ni</span>]][[User talk:AniMate|<span style="font-family:papyrus; color:Black;">Mate</span>]] 22:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
::Please re-read [[WP:PRIMARY]]; especially the second set of bulleted points. There's absolutely nothing wrong wrong with taking primary sources at face value. Using a primary source as a source for the existence of itself (i.e, citing a primary source as evidence of the existence of said primary source) is a perfectly acceptable thing to do, as is using a primary source to make descriptive claims of the information found therein (i.e, "So and so filed whatever document whenever"). This isn't a sourcing issue; we can and do use this practice elsewhere for other purposes. This is a morality and privacy issue. < |
::Please re-read [[WP:PRIMARY]]; especially the second set of bulleted points. There's absolutely nothing wrong wrong with taking primary sources at face value. Using a primary source as a source for the existence of itself (i.e, citing a primary source as evidence of the existence of said primary source) is a perfectly acceptable thing to do, as is using a primary source to make descriptive claims of the information found therein (i.e, "So and so filed whatever document whenever"). This isn't a sourcing issue; we can and do use this practice elsewhere for other purposes. This is a morality and privacy issue. [[User:Celarnor|<b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b>]] [[User_talk:Celarnor|<sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me</sup>]] 23:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
:We are not here to reveal information that people have taken pains to conceal. This is not a judgment about someone's line of work. [[WP:BLP]] includes a presumption in favor of personal privacy when dealing with obscure facts, regardless of the reason that it has been obscured. If the only source for a personal detail, such as a person's true name, is a poorly known primary source then it should be omitted. We are writing an encyclopedia, not engaging in investigative journalism. [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] ([[User talk:Dragons flight|talk]]) 23:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC) |
:We are not here to reveal information that people have taken pains to conceal. This is not a judgment about someone's line of work. [[WP:BLP]] includes a presumption in favor of personal privacy when dealing with obscure facts, regardless of the reason that it has been obscured. If the only source for a personal detail, such as a person's true name, is a poorly known primary source then it should be omitted. We are writing an encyclopedia, not engaging in investigative journalism. [[User:Dragons flight|Dragons flight]] ([[User talk:Dragons flight|talk]]) 23:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
::Is this really an issue? Is Dragon695 really going to find the COPPA filings and enter them into an article? Likely, he will not, as he almost never actually edits articles, and tends to focus on the drama of the day according to his edit history. Secondly, if someone is actually able to obtain the COPPA filings, how can we verify that they are accurate? If the information hasn't been published in a reliable secondary source we have to take the word of a contributor that the document they have is legitimate and that isn't enough to satisfy [[WP:BLP]]. [[User:AniMate|< |
::Is this really an issue? Is Dragon695 really going to find the COPPA filings and enter them into an article? Likely, he will not, as he almost never actually edits articles, and tends to focus on the drama of the day according to his edit history. Secondly, if someone is actually able to obtain the COPPA filings, how can we verify that they are accurate? If the information hasn't been published in a reliable secondary source we have to take the word of a contributor that the document they have is legitimate and that isn't enough to satisfy [[WP:BLP]]. [[User:AniMate|<span style="font-family:papyrus; color:Black;">A</span>]][[Special:Contributions/AniMate|<span style="font-family:papyrus; color:Green;">ni</span>]][[User talk:AniMate|<span style="font-family:papyrus; color:Black;">Mate</span>]] 00:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
:::Investigative journalism is a very good description of filing FOIA's to get birth names out of COPPA filings. It is [[WP:OR|original research]] and it is prohibited. If you want to do that, go work for a newspaper, not as a voluteer trying to build an encyclopedia. Other, secondary and teritiary [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition to putting something in a Wikipedia article. After you've gotten over the hurdles of reliability of sources and [[WP:N|notability]], you're still faced with all of the editorial judgment that must attend decisions about what details to include. That's editorial judgment, gang, not censorship. Things like [[WP:NOT]], [[WP:BLP]], [[WP:HARM]], and [[WP:WEIGHT]], to name a few. |
:::Investigative journalism is a very good description of filing FOIA's to get birth names out of COPPA filings. It is [[WP:OR|original research]] and it is prohibited. If you want to do that, go work for a newspaper, not as a voluteer trying to build an encyclopedia. Other, secondary and teritiary [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition to putting something in a Wikipedia article. After you've gotten over the hurdles of reliability of sources and [[WP:N|notability]], you're still faced with all of the editorial judgment that must attend decisions about what details to include. That's editorial judgment, gang, not censorship. Things like [[WP:NOT]], [[WP:BLP]], [[WP:HARM]], and [[WP:WEIGHT]], to name a few. |
||
<blockquote> |
<blockquote> |
||
Line 588: | Line 619: | ||
:Dragon I think your completely missing the point. I don't care whether someone is a porn star, a normal actor who plays in family films, a carpenter, a scientist, a politician or a whatever. If they are known by a pseudonym and their real name is not published in a reliable secondary sources then you should not be using primary sources to disclose that real name. Period. This has nothing to do with prudity or whatever you want to come up with but wikipedia policy and respect for LPs. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 09:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC) |
:Dragon I think your completely missing the point. I don't care whether someone is a porn star, a normal actor who plays in family films, a carpenter, a scientist, a politician or a whatever. If they are known by a pseudonym and their real name is not published in a reliable secondary sources then you should not be using primary sources to disclose that real name. Period. This has nothing to do with prudity or whatever you want to come up with but wikipedia policy and respect for LPs. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 09:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
{{hab}} |
|||
==Saying that living people are former terrorists== |
|||
A question under [[WP:BLP]] arises in [[Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC ]] regarding whether it is okay to repost in the biographies of [[William Ayers]] and [[Bernadine Dohrn]], election-related articles pertaining to [[Barack Obama]] and the [[Obama-Ayers controversy]], and in the Weathermen article itself, characterizations made by some that the 1960s and 1970s actions of the [[Weather Underground Organization]] constitute terrorism. This affects a number of people who are productive members of society today but who participated in radical US youth movements in the 1960s and 70s. Some feel that calling living people former terorists is a pejorative epithet that is inherently subjective (absent being on any official list) and a BLP violation; others that these people are well known and the accusations of being terrorists are well sourced (i.e. they fit the BLP exception). At the RfC there has been some question (e.g. [[Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC#What WP:BLP actually says | here]] as to what BLP really means, so any guidance there would be helpful. Thanks, [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 18:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC) |
A question under [[WP:BLP]] arises in [[Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC ]] regarding whether it is okay to repost in the biographies of [[William Ayers]] and [[Bernadine Dohrn]], election-related articles pertaining to [[Barack Obama]] and the [[Obama-Ayers controversy]], and in the Weathermen article itself, characterizations made by some that the 1960s and 1970s actions of the [[Weather Underground Organization]] constitute terrorism. This affects a number of people who are productive members of society today but who participated in radical US youth movements in the 1960s and 70s. Some feel that calling living people former terorists is a pejorative epithet that is inherently subjective (absent being on any official list) and a BLP violation; others that these people are well known and the accusations of being terrorists are well sourced (i.e. they fit the BLP exception). At the RfC there has been some question (e.g. [[Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC#What WP:BLP actually says | here]] as to what BLP really means, so any guidance there would be helpful. Thanks, [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 18:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
:We wouldn't want to recklessly toss epithets as if they were mere bombs used to make a political point, would we? [[User:Edison|Edison]] ([[User talk:Edison|talk]]) 19:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
==Using the word fraudulent, and third party sources== |
|||
At [[Grand Orient of the United States of America]] there is a persistent wish to insert the word "fraudulent" about claims made by the founders about the membership of the group. It is sourced from another, personal, web page. The claim, that they have fewer members than they claim, is common and perhaps should be reported, but the way in which the word "fraudulent" is used - particularly when used about identifiable individuals - disturbs me. Could we have an opinion on this? [[User:JASpencer|JASpencer]] ([[User talk:JASpencer|talk]]) 16:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC) |
At [[Grand Orient of the United States of America]] there is a persistent wish to insert the word "fraudulent" about claims made by the founders about the membership of the group. It is sourced from another, personal, web page. The claim, that they have fewer members than they claim, is common and perhaps should be reported, but the way in which the word "fraudulent" is used - particularly when used about identifiable individuals - disturbs me. Could we have an opinion on this? [[User:JASpencer|JASpencer]] ([[User talk:JASpencer|talk]]) 16:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
Line 599: | Line 632: | ||
::::The insistance is due to a desire to accurately quote the source. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 20:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC) |
::::The insistance is due to a desire to accurately quote the source. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 20:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
:::::Why has the quote changed so much from then and now? Is this bit really the most important part of the piece rather than the claim that there are very few active members? [[User:JASpencer|JASpencer]] ([[User talk:JASpencer|talk]]) 20:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC) |
:::::Why has the quote changed so much from then and now? Is this bit really the most important part of the piece rather than the claim that there are very few active members? [[User:JASpencer|JASpencer]] ([[User talk:JASpencer|talk]]) 20:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
::::::I'm unsure if this is the right board and section for this dispute, as generally this section is for broader and more complex ongoing issues relating to several articles rather than a specific case. It's also fairly hard to get outside opinions, when disputants continue arguing rather than stating their opinions and waiting for responses. That being said... my opinion, you should file an RfC to get some more outside opinions or go to [[WP:3O]] to get a new perspective. Even better, find some reliable sources to back up the claim or refute it, as I'm frankly not sure the website necessarily holds up as reliable or notable. [[User:AniMate|< |
::::::I'm unsure if this is the right board and section for this dispute, as generally this section is for broader and more complex ongoing issues relating to several articles rather than a specific case. It's also fairly hard to get outside opinions, when disputants continue arguing rather than stating their opinions and waiting for responses. That being said... my opinion, you should file an RfC to get some more outside opinions or go to [[WP:3O]] to get a new perspective. Even better, find some reliable sources to back up the claim or refute it, as I'm frankly not sure the website necessarily holds up as reliable or notable. [[User:AniMate|<span style="font-family:papyrus; color:Black;">A</span>]][[Special:Contributions/AniMate|<span style="font-family:papyrus; color:Green;">ni</span>]][[User talk:AniMate|<span style="font-family:papyrus; color:Black;">Mate</span>]] 20:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
:::JAS, my most recent wording was posted to the page about 8 minutes before you took the issue to this noticeboard, [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Grand_Orient_of_the_United_States_of_America&diff=238380130&oldid=238379624 here] is the diff ... after that you reverted saying it had BLP issues [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Grand_Orient_of_the_United_States_of_America&diff=next&oldid=238380130 here]. Perhaps you did not notice that I changed the tone and removed any reference to the people and focused on the webpage... So let's be sure that we are discussing my most recent wording. Do you think that my most recent wording is a violation of BLP or not? [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 21:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC) |
:::JAS, my most recent wording was posted to the page about 8 minutes before you took the issue to this noticeboard, [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Grand_Orient_of_the_United_States_of_America&diff=238380130&oldid=238379624 here] is the diff ... after that you reverted saying it had BLP issues [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Grand_Orient_of_the_United_States_of_America&diff=next&oldid=238380130 here]. Perhaps you did not notice that I changed the tone and removed any reference to the people and focused on the webpage... So let's be sure that we are discussing my most recent wording. Do you think that my most recent wording is a violation of BLP or not? [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 21:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
::::Yes, I still think that the word is insufficiently supported connsidering the implications and I am disturbed by the persistence in reinserting it. [[User:JASpencer|JASpencer]] ([[User talk:JASpencer|talk]]) 21:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC) |
::::Yes, I still think that the word is insufficiently supported connsidering the implications and I am disturbed by the persistence in reinserting it. [[User:JASpencer|JASpencer]] ([[User talk:JASpencer|talk]]) 21:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
If this is not the correct place to ask whether an article has BLP issues, would someone please point us in the correct direction? This has to be resolved. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 21:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC) |
If this is not the correct place to ask whether an article has BLP issues, would someone please point us in the correct direction? This has to be resolved. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 21:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
:Well, if you want more people to look at it, generally a report of this nature would go at the bottom of the noticeboard since this isn't an ongoing persistent problem. Have you filed an RfC? Have you asked for a third opinion? Have you tried finding other sources to support your claim? All steps yous should take and try to be patient. [[User:AniMate|< |
:Well, if you want more people to look at it, generally a report of this nature would go at the bottom of the noticeboard since this isn't an ongoing persistent problem. Have you filed an RfC? Have you asked for a third opinion? Have you tried finding other sources to support your claim? All steps yous should take and try to be patient. [[User:AniMate|<span style="font-family:papyrus; color:Black;">A</span>]][[Special:Contributions/AniMate|<span style="font-family:papyrus; color:Green;">ni</span>]][[User talk:AniMate|<span style="font-family:papyrus; color:Black;">Mate</span>]] 21:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
::AniMate, thanks for your time and patience on this... I see from your comments at the article talk page that you cut through the issue of BLP, and address a more fundamental issue... that (masonicinfo.com) is not a reliable secondary source. This should settle the issue, if the source is not reliable then it would be improper to quote the source, and thus there is no BLP question. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 22:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC) |
::AniMate, thanks for your time and patience on this... I see from your comments at the article talk page that you cut through the issue of BLP, and address a more fundamental issue... that (masonicinfo.com) is not a reliable secondary source. This should settle the issue, if the source is not reliable then it would be improper to quote the source, and thus there is no BLP question. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 22:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
==Disappeared versus dead== |
|||
[[Harold Holt]] is categorised as in the mutually exclusive [[:Category:1967 deaths]] (which doesn't get BLP protection) and in [[:Category:Disappeared people]] (which does get BLP protection). At what point of certainty (apart from waiting until 1908 + 123 = 2031) do we consign someone from disappeared to dead? Was there another article a few months ago that faced this dilemma? [[User:Andjam|Andjam]] ([[User talk:Andjam|talk]]) 10:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC) |
|||
==templates for new editors?== |
|||
Forgive me (and point me in the right direction) if someone has done this before, have we given thought to a nicely worded welcome template for newish users who are editing BLP articles, explaining why reliable sourcing is important, and if they have any can they please add, or otherwise not add the material, with sorta nice wording like "imagine this was wirtten about you/your sister/brother etc" and highlighting the imporantce of referencing? Cheers, [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 02:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- [[Template:hab]] -->|} |
|||
===Lurita Doan=== |
|||
[[Category:Wikipedia archives]] |
|||
In July 2008 I noted the NPOV issues in the controversies section of the [[Lurita Doan]] biography on this noticeboard and received no response [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=228901481#Lurita_Doan]. The NPOV problems have remained until recently when an edit was made that addressed several of the issues, but was promptly reverted by other editors. As a friend of the family, I want to avoid a conflict of interest and ask that other editors please take a look. [[User:Shakespeare1616|Shakespeare1616]] ([[User talk:Shakespeare1616|talk]]) 03:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 17:27, 7 April 2023
This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
Please edit the main page of the noticeboard.
This discussion has been archived. Please do not modify it. | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The following is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. | |||||||||||
The following subsections may apply to any or all Biographies of living persons. Unreferenced BLPs[edit]There are over 8300 articles on living people that have the {{unreferenced}} tag. This is a list of them. (warning: pretty big page) —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 00:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
For now, I have completed my search. The result: 17 lists of articles (16 of which contain around 1000 articles) on living people that contain {{unreferenced}}, {{unreferencedsect}}, {{more sources}}, or {{fact}}. Over 16,000 articles on living people that are not completely referenced. Let's get working. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 16:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Working mainly in visual arts articles, I come across a lot of unreferenced BLPs. The majority are written by a new user, whose only contributions are to that article and related, i.e. most likely either the subject of the article or an agent for them. It would be interesting to see how many unreferenced BLPs fit this category. Ty 10:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Similar to whutdat.com (see below), I'm seeing an alarming number of hip-hop biographies attributing SOHH.com as a source. It claims to be a magazine, but it really looks like an over-sensationalized blog to me. At the time of this writing, there are 310+ biographical pages linking to this site. Nearly all of the links are either dead or redirect to a blog site which contain highly questionable tabloid-like articles. Example headline: "Courtney Love Needs to Shut Her “Hole”! Junkie Grunge Queen Thinks VMAs Too "Urban”" Community input is requested here. JBsupreme (talk) 08:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Whutdat.com[edit]I'm witnessing some hip-hop biographies being sourced to a website called "whutdat.com". The site looks like a blog to me but I can't really be too sure these days. Is this a reliable source or should it be thrown out? My senses tell me its the latter but I'd like a second or third opinion. Thanks, JBsupreme (talk) 08:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Is the National Names Database a reliable source? The Talk:NNDB page discussion leans against using it. One editor mentions that Jimbo is very against it, especially as a primary source. It seems to be used quite frequently on biographies. I've challenged it on the Paul Wolfowitz page, but would appreciate more input from others. Notmyrealname 20:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
NNDB is definitely an unreliable source, especially when it's about sexual orientation, risk factors and trivia. As for the newspapers, their reliability is often questionable. By principle, the tabloids must be considered most unreliable sources... Bachibz, 04 August 2007 The NNDB contains reams of errors and misclassifications (calling all world leaders "heads of state", for instance, or calling all cardiac deaths "heart failure" - that one's inexcusably stupid). There's no way to correct the errors (most corrections end up thrown out from what I can see) and the database owners seem to care more about sensationalism than fact. For some years they reported the Catherine the Great horse story as if it were gospel truth. If the NNDB said the sun rose in the east, I'd verify first. Entertaining but wholly unreliable. --NellieBly (talk) 09:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC) There seems to be a similar problem as above with the Jewish Virtual Library, especially as a source for biographical information. Sourcing seems to be very vague and often cites wikipedia itself. A few examples: [1], [2], [3], [4]. As with the NNDB, if a source is determined to be unreliable, shouldn't it be prohibited from being listed in the references section as well? It seems that this might be used as a way to sneak in information that otherwise wouldn't make it into the wiki article. (I've tried to raise this issue on the Talk:Jewish Virtual Library page and the Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources pages as well but this seems to be a particular problem for biographical info).Notmyrealname 12:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
f1fanatic[edit]This site is being used as a reference on a number of Formula 1 biographies. It appears to be fan-run and self-published site, without the fact-checking and editorial oversight WP:RS requires, and as such may not meet standards outlined in WP:BLP#Sources. Most, if not all, of the links were added by the site's owner(s) and/or author(s), which raises additional WP:COI issues. The site has other problems, for instance displaying images with no copyright info (http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/wallpapers/) and linking to copyvio Youtube clips (http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2006/06/18/100-greatest-f1-videos-part-i/). There has been some prior talk page discussion about the link's appropriateness (f1fanatic.co.uk as a reference, External link - F1F biography). --Muchness 10:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC) WhosDatedWho.com[edit]Not a lot of links so far, but watch for this site to be used as a reference supporting celebrity relationships. I've started searching for reliable-source verification for the information (some of it is no doubt accurate) and removing the link and any relationships that can't be reliably verified elsewhere. From the editorial policy of the site:
--Risker 04:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC) I am a representative of this site and appreciate that wikipedia needs accurate sources for its information. I acknowledge your concerns and will ensure these are taken into account in our future site update. We are working to improve the accuracy of the information posted on our site and are introducing a verification mechanism in the near future. We recently gave editors the ability to post links to sources for every relationship published on the site. I would also like to state that like wikipedia, all of our content is edited by editors, with our senior editors having ultimate control over what is published. --Aamair (talk) 07:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
WP:BLP#Reliable sources policy section itself[edit]
Porn actors' birth names[edit]
Saying that living people are former terrorists[edit]A question under WP:BLP arises in Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC regarding whether it is okay to repost in the biographies of William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, election-related articles pertaining to Barack Obama and the Obama-Ayers controversy, and in the Weathermen article itself, characterizations made by some that the 1960s and 1970s actions of the Weather Underground Organization constitute terrorism. This affects a number of people who are productive members of society today but who participated in radical US youth movements in the 1960s and 70s. Some feel that calling living people former terorists is a pejorative epithet that is inherently subjective (absent being on any official list) and a BLP violation; others that these people are well known and the accusations of being terrorists are well sourced (i.e. they fit the BLP exception). At the RfC there has been some question (e.g. here as to what BLP really means, so any guidance there would be helpful. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Using the word fraudulent, and third party sources[edit]At Grand Orient of the United States of America there is a persistent wish to insert the word "fraudulent" about claims made by the founders about the membership of the group. It is sourced from another, personal, web page. The claim, that they have fewer members than they claim, is common and perhaps should be reported, but the way in which the word "fraudulent" is used - particularly when used about identifiable individuals - disturbs me. Could we have an opinion on this? JASpencer (talk) 16:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
If this is not the correct place to ask whether an article has BLP issues, would someone please point us in the correct direction? This has to be resolved. Blueboar (talk) 21:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Disappeared versus dead[edit]Harold Holt is categorised as in the mutually exclusive Category:1967 deaths (which doesn't get BLP protection) and in Category:Disappeared people (which does get BLP protection). At what point of certainty (apart from waiting until 1908 + 123 = 2031) do we consign someone from disappeared to dead? Was there another article a few months ago that faced this dilemma? Andjam (talk) 10:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC) templates for new editors?[edit]Forgive me (and point me in the right direction) if someone has done this before, have we given thought to a nicely worded welcome template for newish users who are editing BLP articles, explaining why reliable sourcing is important, and if they have any can they please add, or otherwise not add the material, with sorta nice wording like "imagine this was wirtten about you/your sister/brother etc" and highlighting the imporantce of referencing? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC) |