Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Ongoing BLP concerns

Ongoing WP:BLP-related concerns

The following subsections may apply to any or all Biographies of living persons.

WP:BLP When is a daily newspaper considered an UNreliable source?

A wikipedia administrator deleted a reference to certain information in a BLP of a well-known public official which was sourced from a daily newspaper, and then picked up by some other media outlets. His reason for deletion was that (1) he claimed WP:BLP, (2) the information might harm the political prospects of the individual, (3) it was only reported by one newspaper doing investigative research, (4) that particular newspaper made a minor fact-checking error in the article on a point not related to the individual, (5) that particular newspaper was not a national newspaper. There seems to be no other information on wikipedia which suggests that this particular newspaper is unreliable or consistently bad on fact checking. General question: When is a daily newspaper considered an unreliable source? For example, is size of circulation a determiner? Followup question 1: Does an error somewhere in a newspaper article invalidate the entire article as a reliable source? Followup question 2: If wikipedia had existed during the Nixon presidency, would it have been fair to report that the Washington Post claimed certain things about events surrounding the Nixon reelection campaign that would have hurt Nixon, even though that newspaper was the sole source of the claims due to their exclusive (Deep Throat) source? ((unsigned))

Deep Throat was not a RS. The WaPo abdicated editorial oversight over Woodward/Bernstein and is not a RS for the assertion that Deep Throat said anything W/B asserted DT said. But NYT, Boston Herald, etc. are RS that WaPo made the assertions. And Nixon was a public figure. So BLP in this case is spelled CYA, and Wikipedia's would have been covered. Andyvphil (talk) 12:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It depends on the specific article, the nature of the article (op-ed, feature, news, etc), the author, the subject, and the claims being made. The question is hard to answer in the abstract. Wikidemo (talk) 23:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Using "reliable" sources is just the beginning for a BLP. NPOV says - "A common type of dispute is when an editor asserts that a fact is both verifiable and cited, and should therefore be included. A matter that is both verifiable and supported by reliable sources might nonetheless be proposed to make a point or cited selectively; painted by words more favorably or negatively than is appropriate; made to look more important or more dubious than a neutral view would present; marginalized or given undue standing; described in slanted terms which favor or weaken it; or subject to other factors suggestive of bias". In BLPs, it is always better to play it safe.Momento (talk) 05:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

To the original poster : be careful that you do not miss the forest for the trees here. Even if you can establish a particular newspaper as a reliable source, that does not necessarily give you free license to include derogatory information in the biography of a living person. You should include a link to the material in question if you sincerely want an objective evaluation of the particular situation. If an administrator removed the material, it probably is inappropriate. WP:BLP states, in part -

"Presumption in favor of privacy

Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, and as such it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. BLPs must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy.

When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. In the best case, it can lead to an unencyclopedic article. In the worst case, it can be a serious violation of our policies on neutrality. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic.

Basic human dignity

Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects. Wikipedia aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly. This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization."

I hope this helps! Cleo123 (talk) 05:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP and primary sources published in secondary sources

This aspect of BLP seems to be causing confusion, specifically Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source.
Here's the general situation; Imagine the subject is a lawyer/judge/litigant/ or in some way owes their notability to actions in a court of law which generates primary sources as a nature of its function. The secondary source, a newspaper, describes in broad strokes information gleaned from court transcripts because it is so detailed that discussing specifics would take too much space for a newspaper article.

Some believe that mentioning anything in a primary source such as a court record, which is not discussed in the newspaper article, would be a violation of WP:BLP regardless of its applicability to the subject's notability. If this is true then primary sources should never be linked since they will by their very nature discuss specifics/info not mentioned in the secondary source.

Others think that info from a primary source which goes into greater detail than the secondary source is ok so long as it doesn't try to change the POV expressed of the secondary AND directly relates to the subject's notability. I'm closer to this opinion since I agree that while all primary sources may not be acceptable for BLP references, certainly court documents related to notability should be because they are both reliable and verifiable. Anynobody 07:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I (cautiously) agree. The great danger with primary sources is that by the nature they tend to require synthesis to use in an article. To use your example, that of a court record, I could see using a court document that shows a person was convicted of a crime as proof that they were convicted, and received a certain sentence. I imagine that this generally would not offend BLP provided the matter received appropriate weight within an article. Of greater concern would be matters that were testified to in a hearing, or alleged in court papers. Even if one side or the other wins the case, is that proof the a particular claim is true? Or was the other evidence so convincing that the prevailing side won in spite of the claim? Often the court won't tell you. Use of the documents in that type of case, I think, is problematic. Xymmax (talk) 16:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Definitely they are sources to be used with caution, for the exact reason you pointed out, indeed synthesis and even all out original research could be easily introduced. I see the use of court records as being suitable to do essentially neutral things like;

• Documenting each side's arguments without drawing conclusions,
• Elaborate when a secondary source is vague in referencing aspects of a case, for example imagine a reporter citing how a lack of time would prevent person x from committing crime y without further elaboration. In this hypothetical lets say the court record shows x being in another country at the time. I'd imagine our text to read something like, "A report by Paper Z cited Person X's lack of time to commit the crime,^[1] as court records show him/her being out of the country."^[2] Anynobody 07:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

With no secondary source having that as the reason for the statement, it sure looks like OR to me. Which I'm ok with, since I think the real problem is that you need to recognize a limit on the application of OR when it gets seriously in the way of what WP:NOTOR calls the "responsibility to present an accurate and factual overview of the topic addressed in the article". Suppose your text read "A report by Paper Z cited Person X's lack of time to commit the crime, stating that court records show him as being out of the country^[1]", but examination of the court records show this statement to simply be false, not as a matter of what WP:BLP calls "a conjectural interpretation of a source" but as a simple black-and-white fact, the court records showing X entered the country the day before and left it the day after the crime. And further suppose that no RS can be found to contradict Paper Z, just, maybe, several quoting Paper Z. Do you suppress mention of Paper Z's influential but erroneous assertion? Do you quote it, suppressing mention of the fact that it's wrong? Do you quote it, but supply a caveat supplying the contrary evidence and expressing puzzlement, generalizing what WP:NOTOR suggests only in the context of "expert material"? (This is not a pure hypothetical -- I've recently had occasion to do the last.) Andyvphil (talk) 12:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Can BLP apply to a group? i.e., a court ruled that a newspaper article was "prima facie libelous and defamatory" and awarded damages to a group for libel. Now, a user keeps referring to the "sexual abuse" case when really it was a case of libel in favor of the group (and actually, the case he cites was a higher court case on a procedural/jurisdictional question, i.e., can an individual sue for libel if their group was defamed, or does defamation apply only to individuals?). Given that a court already ruled these allegations libelous, it seems that it also would be libelous to re-post the same information on Wiki? Advice would be appreciated.Renee (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I found the answer to my own question. Yes, the court agreed that a member of a group could be libeled if the group was libeled. Here is the summary judgement where the judge denied the appeal (the appeal said only an individual can be libeled, not a group, the judge denied that), specifically, "Prima facie offence under section 307 I.P.C. is appearing against the accused applicant [the Pioneer newspaper]. It is not a case where charge sheet may be quashed." Here is the full ruling where the judge states the newspaper article and allegations are "prima facie libelous and defamatory." (page 4, #5) Thanks. Renee (talk) 15:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

BLP subject ambiguity

Not quite sure where's best to post this, but it could apply to any BLP subject and may benefit from wider awareness.

We might routinely get problems whereby some "John Smith" tells us that the article "John Smith" points to a mass murderer, or other person that makes them look bad. In such cases please be aware of Template:AmbiguousBio, which can be placed at the top of a BLP article and looks like this:

The template takes a name, a brief description of the article subject, and an (optional) disambiguation page for others with similar names if such a page exists. For an example see Russell Bishop (sex offender). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

That format of template for non fixable problems is not acceptable. IF you really need something write it in hatnotes format.Geni 10:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this could be placed on talk pages but never in the mainspace.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, this is a pretty neat idea. I have converted it to a hatnote so it could be a bit more "in sync" with other disambiguation templates. ViperSnake151 01:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Disputed biographies of living persons

→ In re {{BLPC}} template and WP:BLPC

I created this page as a simple category to flag BLP concerns quickly: WP:BLPC. It seems like a good idea. - Denny 21:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Watch it fill up. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully it clears even faster. :) - Denny 21:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Very good idea. Nice one. -- ChrisO 07:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Update on {{BLPC}}

From template page: "Note - this used to use Category:BLP Check, but now shares {{blpdispute}}'s category of Category:Disputed biographies of living persons."   [ Update added here by Athaenara ✉ at 02:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC) ]

Further update

The template {{BLPC}} itself now redirects to {{blpdispute}}, and the category is now empty and no longer used. I've nominated it for deletion. --Darkwind (talk) 21:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes to BLPs

A link to Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:Living people has been added to the RecentChanges page under the "Utilities" row, titled BLP. This can facilitate the finding of vandalism to biographies of living persons to avoid a "Sinbad (actor)-type" incident happening in the future. Cross-posted to WP:VPN, WP:AN, WT:BLP, #wikipedia, and #wikipedia-en. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 18:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

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)

Oh shit, that's worse than I thought.--Doc^g 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. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, {{fact}} should NEVER be used on contentious issues on BLPs. Uncited contentious material should simply be removed.--Doc^g 02:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Aye, and originally the list was going to include {{fact}}-transcluders AND {{unreferenced}}-transcluders but the latter is a bigger priority, so let's do that first. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 11:52, 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)

Unless the policy has morphed again, an {{unreferenced}} BLP that contains no controversial statement is not a violation; many of these probably qualify. {{fact}} is probably more serious. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:48, 5 October 2007 (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. Let's get to work! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 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. Ty 10:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

NNDB Notable Names Database

• Special:Linksearch/*.nndb.com

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)

No, it is not a reliable source for any sort of controversial or disputed information. FCYTravis 22:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this an official policy or just an opinion? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Notmyrealname (talk • contribs) 19:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

From WP:RS: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." We do not know who the authors of the NNDB are, and thus we have no way of knowing how credible or trustworthy the information is. What we do know is that many of the articles (c.f. the NNDB article on Michael Jackson) are written from a clearly-biased perspective with the intent of generating maximum lulz. Our biographies of living persons policy demands the absolute strictest standards of sourcing and neutrality when we maintain a biography of a living person, and further requires that we use great caution in sourcing any claim which may be controversial, derogatory or disputed. Citing NNDB for something like a birthplace is one thing, citing it for a claim that someone was arrested for <insert scandalous crime here> is entirely another. Even then, it shouldn't be cited unless it's absolutely the last resort - and if it is, we probably shouldn't have an article on the subject anyway. FCYTravis 21:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I ran into one case where the NNDB said a person was born in 1954 but his WP article said he was drafted into the army in 1962. Steve Dufour 00:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's the quote from Jimbo Wales-Why on earth should we consider it a valid source? It seems to me to be riddled with errors, many of which were lifted directly from Wikipedia. To my knowledge, it should be regarded like Wikipedia: not a valid source for anything in Wikipedia. We need to stick to REAL reliable sources, you know, like newspapers, magazines, books. Random websites are a very bad idea.--Jimbo Wales 18:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC) Notmyrealname 02:30, 10 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)

Jewish Virtual Library

• Special:Linksearch/*.jewishvirtuallibrary.org

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)

I would treat it as a convenience source, with great care taken about POV. The sponsorship is by "The AMERICAN-ISRAELI COOPERATIVE ENTERPRISE (AICE) was established in 1993 as a nonprofit 501(c)(3), nonpartisan organization to strengthen the U.S.-Israel relationship by emphasizing the fundamentals of the alliance — the values our nations share." The material posted there is only as authoritative as the source or poster may be authoritative--it always gives the source, but only sometimes the exact link. Looking at their index [5] of biographies, the individual ones link to a variety of useful sources of varying reliability. It obviously cannot be used to prove anything contentious--but since it usually omits negative information, little contentious is likely to be found.DGG 21:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, one concern is that it's a back-door way of implying a person's religion when there isn't a proper way to do it that complies with WP:BLP. It's extremely rare for them to site any of their sources with specificity (I haven't seen any cases of it other than "Republican Jewish Committee" or "Wikipedia"), so there's no easy way to fact check them. I don't see how this resolves any of the concerns that Jimmy Wales raises above about the NNDB. Notmyrealname 22:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

f1fanatic

• 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 (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

• Special:Linksearch/*.whosdatedwho.com

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:

“ Information contained on the WhosDatedWho.com website listed has not been independently verified by WhosDatedWho.com. WhosDatedWho.com does not and can not review all materials posted to the WhosDatedWho.com Web Site by users, and WhosDatedWho.com is not responsible for any such materials posted by users. ”

--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)

• No matter how reliable the information on the WhosDatedWho.com website is supposedly made, it doesn't change the fact that the website is a tertiary source, like Wikipedia. This means it definately can't be used to assert notability, and will probably never be reliable enough to cite content either. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 13:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

If we still have a representative of the site watching this, is there any way its domain name can be changed to WhosDatedWhom.com? For the impressionable kids out there? :) MastCell ^Talk 19:56, 6 December 2007 (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. —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 involved in previously editing this project page. 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. --NYScholar 00:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC) [strike out in response to reply below. --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 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 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. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I appreciate the reply here. The problems do not seem, however, to be the kind that further discussion is going to change. Discussion of the same problems has been ongoing for over three months. I think some degree of non-editorial intervention may be necessary. So many of us commenting on the policy statement have strong views about it that it is hard to reach what Wikipedia calls "consensus" and changes to the page have not, in my own and some others' views, improved it, so that the currently-protected version does not state what it used to (pre-August 12) even though there is clear disagreement about some phrases that have been deleted from the current version. Many editors (including several administrators) have expressed the view that the phrases deleted should remain. --NYScholar 00:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Possibly (the length of the "External links" section on the talk page, combined with the absence of any tangible result, is certainly not a reason for optimism). However, continued discussion (even if it leads nowhere) is undoubtedly more productive than edit-warring. Perhaps it may be useful to invite some new participants to the discussion by posting notices to the talk pages of other policy pages? — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:51, 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. --NYScholar 18:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Porn actors' birth names

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? 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. John celona (talk) 13:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

What about the BLP policy of presumption in the favor of privacy, especially when it doesn't help the WP project in any way. BLP policy states that respecting the basic human dignity of the subject is essential, and other editors have noted that "outing" these people's birth names (it's ok to use their public stage name) assists in stalking and potential danger to the subjects. There is no real benefit and there is real potential for harm. This is straight from BLP Policy: "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated OR HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY CONCEALED **which is the case for these subjects**, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context" --Jkp212 (talk) 14:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

This surely must not be the first time such matters have been discussed on Wikipedia. Does anyone have pointers to previous threads? I could imagine making the answer depend on whether a large, mainstream publication had revealed the persons' real name. If the real name has already appeared in the New York Times or Newsweek then keeping it out of the article is probably not worth the effort, and has little privacy value. EdJohnston (talk) 17:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

As you well know the phrase OR HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY CONCEALED which you so helpfully capitalise is immediately followed by AS IN CERTAIN COURT CASES. Since there are no court cases and the actors names are VERY widely disseminated they belong in the article. They are actors which is as much not a "non-public" occupation as can be imagined. John celona (talk) 18:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The names have not been mentioned in any large, mainstream publication and are NOT widely disseminated. Widely is certainly more than 5 obscure gay porn blog sources for Tim Hamilton (the interview in question published twice!) or one source only for Lukas Ridgeston plus about 14 gay porn listings with no real value at all. For Lukas Ridgeston the name has been intentionally disclosed in the review of that gay magazine. This has been done against the expressed wish of the actor and production company Bel Ami. AS IN CERTAIN COURT CASES is NOT a concluding enumeration but an example. Even with English not being my native language I can read the difference. So no need for a court case here either. There is no real benefit in publishing the names and no significant loss of context in not doing so. On the contrary revealing the names in this or in any future case violates the WP principles mentioned by Jkp212. Putting them back in repeatedly should be regarded, in my opinion, as vandalism. Just as John celona said "an actor's real name ... may be placed on the article". But it does not have to be placed, which is in accordance with the BLP policy of presumption in the favor of privacy. (Jamesbeat (talk) 19:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

"As in certain court cases" is one example of where a name has been intentionally concealed. Actors such as these who choose to have stages names are also intentionally concealing their birth name, which they have every right to do. --Jkp212 (talk) 20:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The Brandy Alexandre page is the model. Please look at the code. If you hit "edit this page", the first thing you see at the top is code from Jimmy Wales asking that her birth name not be revealed. Need a better authority than that? David in DC (talk) 21:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to say User:EdJohnston makes a good point. Where is the prior discussion on this? I don't see any for Brandy Alexandre, even on the talk page. Was it archived? What about for Hamilton or Ridgeston or any of the others? Viewing the prior consensus on the subject would be most helpful in this discussion. Thanks. --Ebyabe (talk) 23:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

What it actually says is "As a courtesy while we discuss the issues surrounding this article". In other words-temporary. Plus, what wikipedia regulation says Luke Ford is not a reliable source. He is on dozens of other pages. provide the source please. as you have been told on many other issues: this is Wiki-pedia not David-pedia. John celona (talk) 00:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

For everything that needs saying, read the archive here: It sets forth the views of Anon E. Mouse, Jimbo, and SavvyCat (Ms. Alexandre) as fully as necessary. About outing porn actor's names AND about the reliability of Luke Ford as a source. David in DC (talk) 03:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I know that a number of the participants in WP:P* (myself included) routinely pull out uncited names from porn star articles on simple WP:BLP issues... what if the name's wrong? And there are other stars besides Brandy who have had their names pulled from the article at the star's own request... Sasha Grey is one I remember offhand. Beyond that, the principles that John Celona mentions above ("an actor's real name is reliably sourced and widely disseminated") apply, and no, IMDB is not a reliable source for the name! Now if we can only get all the various editions to follow that last point; I know of one porn star complaining about a foreign language Wiki that has their real name on it with IMDB as a "source", and her parents were getting hassled on it as a result of it (it's Katja Kassin & the German version)... unfortunately the Wiki in question doesn't seem to be responding to her complaints. Tabercil (talk) 06:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Some insight into User:John celona's attitude towards privacy and harm reduction may be gleaned from a Deletion Review a year ago, specifically this comment, this comment and this comment. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Outing people is bad. I dealt with porn star names (e.g. Tawnee Stone, Jordan Capri) way back in the dark ages before BLP even existed and even then we all agreed that Wikipedia should not be the primary venue for locating information such as this. If the mainstream media has published someone's identity, then okay, but we shall not rely on the blog of the guy who claims to have gone to high school with the actress. Nor shall we rely on the name that appears on the obscure trademark filing for the "character" (yes, this seriously came up). If you are going to publish information that may have real world consequences for someone then you ought to have sources that are at least as reliable and as visible as Wikipedia itself before doing so. Dragons flight (talk) 15:08, 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. --BenBurch (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

This is going to come up repeatedly in the future. In the Brandy Alexandre case, some editors seemed to think that we were just applying the 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. 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. AniMate 18:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that a name attested by a 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. 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. AniMate 18:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I am in agreement with a policy change. There is no gain to "outing" people like this. --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? 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. AniMate 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 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. 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 here. 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. AniMate 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? 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. AniMate 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). 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. AniMate 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. 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:

• 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 would cause us to include the real names of Jenna Jameson and Jeff Stryker, and omit the names of Lukas Ridgeston, Tim Hamilton (porn star) and Johan Paulik. EdJohnston (talk) 02:50, 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. 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. --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.

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? AniMate 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. 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. (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 [[6]] where the "reliable source" he cited was a porn site. --Jkp212 (talk) 16:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Widely disseminated? 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. AniMate 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. David in DC (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Per this discussion, I've deleted Ridgeston's birth name.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" John celona (talk) 22:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

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. AniMate 22:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It is on almost every google hit! 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 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. AniMate 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 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. --Jkp212 (talk) 00:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I intend to catalog and revert all attempts to remove real names from porn star articles as the removal is blatant violation of WP:POINT. Sorry, but when you decide to be a porn star, you are relinquishing your right to hide your name. This is not a matter of opinion, since it is necessary to comply with the COPPA law. Anyway, as with any actor or author, when a pseudonym is used it is conventional to give the legal name as well. There is no consensus to change this policy and no rationale other then more hysterical WP:BLP hand-wringing. I will take a stand on this issue because I'm sick and tired of the extremists decimating our biographies. Fix obvious BLP errors, but do not remove verifiable information because you have some personal beliefs on privacy. WP:NOT here to be your privacy battleground, so take it to discussion boards if you want to gripe about it. Again, their choice to become a porn star invalidates their right to keep their real name secret. Accuracy and NPOV always trump WP:BLP; we are here to write informative articles for our readers, not play PR Firm for the subjects of biographies. No harm is done by listing the legal name other then fringe concerns invented by concern trolls. --Dragon695 (talk) 22:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. And a lot of what you've typed is put pretty incivilly. "[W]hen you decide to be a porn star, you are relinquishing your right to hide your name" is irrelevant. Getting the real name from a COPPA filing is the archetype of the behavior WP:NOR bans. And, as noted above, WP:BLP gives us pretty clear instructions on what to do if someone has purposely obsured their name, porn star or not. I think we're wise to be guided by the folks from the WP porn project, who have stated a pretty convincing case above, in my opinion, for removing porn actors' birth names unless they are known for something outside of porn.David in DC (talk) 22:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was rude, but my frustration is borne from seeing well intentioned fans of WP:BLP go to extremes to reduce our biographies to crappy stubs. Somebody has to stop this nonsense. WP:BLP is not a be all and end all to this project. The point of this project is write accurate, verifiable articles. Including the legal name is part of the accurate part and poses very minimal privacy concerns for those who have chosen to become actors. What industry they act in is irrelevant. --Dragon695 (talk) 23:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

"I intend to catalog" is very different from "I am unilaterally reverting". The recent edits to Tim Hamilton's page are a disruption. Please stop. David in DC (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Dragon says "fix obvious BLP errors"...One such obvious BLP error is including a poorly sourced name, the way Celona did above (source was a porn site)....You have encouraged him to engage in this type of behavior, which is not according to WP policy. --Jkp212 (talk) 22:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Fine, I will locate more reliable sources, including COPPA filings, and then re-insert the name. I will refrain from reverting any removals where the source was not reliable. But I reject this absurd notion that we must remove all legal names of actors because of privacy concerns. --Dragon695 (talk) 23:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I am WP:IAR because 3 or 4 biased editors do not get to reinterpret policy. Citing reliable sources, such as a COPPA filing, is not WP:OR. This is SOP for all actors, we list the pseudonym and the legal name. We do not make exceptions for pornographic actors. Again, WP:BLP is not part of the WP:FIVE and it does not trump reporting accurate, verifiable information where there are no REASONABLE privacy concerns. A legal name is not a valid privacy concern for an actor; their decision to be an actor disqualifies them from this right. --Dragon695 (talk) 22:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

BRAVO to you! As General Macarthur said-"I have returned!" 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. --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. AniMate 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 John celona and now 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. (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. --Dragon695 (talk) 22:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. And irregardless of BLP, I fail to see how adding the real names of people who are notable for their work in pornography under another name helps create a good article based on notable information about (their work in pornography under another name). If someone was notable for acting in pornography in the past and had now become an activist under another name and was engaging in activities that might become notable, then perhaps that other name would be suitable for inclusion to add research. But for the majority of these articles? Hell no. John Nevard (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry John, but we have plenty of pointless information. All actors using pseudonyms also have their real names listed. This is the default for just about every biography. The reason you and others want it removed is why? Why should porn actors get special treatment? WP:NPOV is very clear, we do not play favorites. There are no privacy concerns, if the information is reliably sourced, in it goes. It's a matter of consistency and accuracy. I'm sorry if the person is ashamed of being a porn actor, but perhaps they should have thought of that before they willingly chose to enter that profession. In light of that, I have already been busy making requests for COPPA documentation where only non-reliable sources document the real name. As these are official, government mandated documents, their accuracy cannot be disputed. Lastly, if you want to see just one of hundreds of biographies where the real name of actors with stage names are listed, please see Marilyn Manson. Note, nobody calls him by his real name in the media, but it is still a very factually relevent part of a biography. --Dragon695 (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you inform the rest of us what a COPPA filing is and how does one go about requesting this information? I mean is it a government document or database that's publicly available? Can you also explain to me how and why pornographic actors must disclose their real names to the public under COPPA when the law is aimed to protect the privacy of children when they surf the internet? I'm asking these questions because I believe you are advocating a point based on a misunderstanding of the law. Perhaps you're thinking of another law? Vinh1313 (talk) 17:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

No BLP says:

“ Caution should be applied when naming individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed (such as in certain court cases), it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. ” — WP:BLP, Privacy of Names

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. --Dragon695 (talk) 22:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Consensus?

Does this represent a consensus now?:

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.

It looks to me like it does. David in DC (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• I need clarification on the "notable activities" outside of pornography. Like say a family law dispute that makes the papers like the Racquel Darrian example [7]. It's clear even from the newspaper article that she is trying to protect her privacy. What if the actor willingly discloses his/her name in a porn publication like Dana DeArmond? Vinh1313 (talk) 16:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I can't see the Dana DeArmond example as being an issue as her actions make it clear she is voluntarily forgoing her privacy by deliberately and publicly using her real name. It's when the porn star is not acting to reveal their real name that's the crux of the issue here, such as the Raquel Darrian example, and I honestly can't imagine a messier situtation to use to try and figure out how the new policy works than the Darrian example. Tabercil (talk) 21:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

No David you do not have a consensus. My own guideline would be to merely look and see if Answers.com gives there real name. You may have had a consensus a day ago but now you don't. I reserve the right to proceed without the consent of some extremely small group on some Wiki noticeboard. Please take note that Answers.com does not give out Brandy Alexandres real name. All of these cases must be taken on a case by case basis. You do not have consensus here. Sorry David but your interpretation of Blp and wiki is redolent of that of someone who has an agenda. These cases must be decided on a case by case basis or not at all. Albion moonlight (talk) 20:56, 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. --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. --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. AniMate 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. :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. AniMate 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 [[8]]. 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. 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. AniMate 00:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The case that I referenced above is here : 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. Albion moonlight (talk) 04:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It does mirror Wikipedia, but unlike Wikipedia, it's not a Wiki that evolves in 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. --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. AniMate 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. 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. :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 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. Otto4711 (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Not including in articles the real name of porn actors is in full compliance with WP:BLP and the other cited rules. It is utter nonsense to argue it is censorship. Censorship would be to delete those articles. It definitely makes a difference if people are acting in mainstream movies or in the porn business. Adding the real name of porn actors does not make a better article but is doing stalker's business like the Johan Paulik case has proofen. An encyclopedia has to be responsible and not to be like a tabloid. Therefore it should respect the privacy of people and not serve ill minded people like John celona, who use unreliable and bad sources to add real names. As the consensus above shows there is no arguing about publishing the names when the criteria are met. Again it is just spinning words and rules that have been agreed upon by the community to make editors appear as victims of censorship when in fact these editors are trying to 'vandalizing' established rules. (Jamesbeat (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC))

Washington Post or a mainstream US Tv station are "unreliable and bad sources" only for self-appointed censors like you. John celona (talk) 11:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear John, you neither gave Washington Post nor a mainstream TV station as source in the two cases that led to this discussion. Both I certainly would not have questioned as unreliable and bad sources and we would have argued about ethics and not about sources. What made the difference was that your sources then were a gay guide and a gay porn blog.

Well James, you seem to misunderstand what wiki means by consensus I will assume good faith and remind you that consensus does not exist until everyone either agrees or agrees to disagree. That is clearly not the case here. Second of all you should really avoid making personal attacks by calling people ill minded or vandals. That kind of behavior can get you blocked from editing wikipedia. I am not an ill minded person James nor am I a vandal. So please take it easy on the insults. OK ?? They are not helpful. :Albion moonlight (talk) 05:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• I don't believe I used the word "censorship" in discussing this situation, but as long as you bring up that politically charged buzzword, I would point out the Wikipedia is not censored. There is a process in place on a case-by-case basis for dealing with the real name of anyone, porn performer or not, appearing in the article and that is to delete the edits and oversight them. I have not followed the alleged Johan Paulik "stalking" case but since Wikipedia requires reliable secondary sources the notion that his name not having been included in a Wikipedia article would have prevented a stalker or anyone else from finding his name is ludicrous, since to be in a Wikipedia article it needs to be available elsewhere already. There is no consensus that I see here that including real names of porn stars (or anyone else) is acceptable only if they are notable for something other than being a porn star. The requirement of reliable sourcing proposed here is redundant to existing policies and the proposed requirement that they be notable for something outside of pornography is stupid and I cannot support any suggestion that there is consensus for this requirement. Otto4711 (talk) 21:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It would not have prevented a stalker from finding the name. But it makes a BIG difference if you have to search the net on your own or you just go to Wikipedia as your primary source. Again. This is straight from BLP Policy: "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed as in certain court cases, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context". The real names of porn actors have intentionally been concealed AND omitting them does not result in a significant loss of context. Both these WP criterias are met when dealing with this issue. But to avoid significant loss of context it was proposed that when these persons are notable for something outside of pornography the name couild be added if properly sourced, of course. So this requirement is anything but stupid. (Jamesbeat (talk) 22:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC))

By the way, is there a single reliable source that Johan was stalked by someone because his real name was on Wikipedia? How can you stalk someone without their address or phone number neither of which appear (or should appear) on Wikipedia?John celona (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• I was wondering that myself. I did some looking around and couldn't find any indication that Johan has ever been stalked, either based on his Wikipedia article or otherwise. Even if he had been, the notion that Wikipedia is responsible for protecting people against stalkers is ludicrous. Anyone could decide to stalk any living person; should we remove all biographical information from all living people out of the fear that someone somewhere might stalk them? I completely support the notion that on a case-by-case basis, where the person (regardless of his or her occupation) can demonstrate that having their birth name in a Wikipedia article is causing them actual harm, then Wikipedia should restrict the inclusion of their birth name. "Someone might do something mean to me" is not a legitimate excuse for omitting encyclopedic and verifiable information. The notion that Wikipedia is responsible for the consequences of being a one-click stop for biographical information as opposed to forcing a hypothetical stalker to do a little extra work is silly. Otto4711 (talk) 23:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Amen to that. I think IDMB is a good enough source for birth names but perhaps not for gossip. But that does not mean I think any of us have the right to try and vilfy those who disagree with us. Wikilawyering can be very disruptive. All Blp cases need to be regarded on a case by case basis. It is not up to us to declare IDMB or any other source as unreliable for the whole of wikipedia. Jimbo and a few others have that right but we don't. :Albion moonlight (talk) 00:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

For sourcing BLPs, all sources in an article must be proven to be reliable for the information they represent. If there's doubt, leave it out. That's what our policy says. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia and do have fun while you are learning about how things really work here. 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. --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. AniMate 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.

But there is a Slovak ice hockey player with the same name that is alleged to be Johan Paulik's birth name. He plays on an Irish ice hockey team and is listed here on WP. I can find no online source that indicates this ice hockey player has been stalked on the assumption that he is Johan Paulik. But it's not hard to believe. And Jamesbeat has reported to us that Johan Paulik HAS been stalked. There's no good reason to think JB made this up.

First, do no harm. Not Silly. Err on the side of caution. Not Silly. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Very Not Silly.

Irish soccer hooligans can be pretty vicious. It's hard to imagine that Irish ice hockey fans would be less so.David in DC (talk) 03:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying David but I don't think wiki is responsible for the actions of soccer fans or hockey fans. I do not believe that JB made it up I just think his or her rationale is not all that compelling. Albion moonlight (talk) 05:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC) Albion moonlight (talk) 05:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. We can agree to disagree. On another note, thank you for the chuckle. Your greeting to the new editor above made me laugh out loud when I followed the link to his talk page and understood your joke. David in DC (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason not to assume the "stalking" was made up. When asked for a RS the user dissapeared from the discussion. John celona (talk) 00:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, no reason except for WP:AGF anyway. But assuming JB's good faith is pretty important.David in DC (talk) 11:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for having 'disappeared'. But sometimes unexpected things happen and WP becomes the least important concern. The Johan Paulik stalking happened about ten years ago. It was reported over here at the time in a TV feature about the Prague gay scene. During a short interview Johan Paulik mentioned having been victim to a stalker because his real name had been published. The incident was also shortly discussed on a forum. The forum went offline around 2000. So there is no trace to be found any more, which leaves me of course with no real evidence to proof this story. But it was not made up.

What I was trying to say about "to make sure WP doesn't become The Stalker's Handbook" is that contrary to the IMDb the real names are available on WP to everyone sometimes even accompanied by a picture for easy identification whereas the IMDb has no head shots. The IMDb even requires additional steps to view adult content. The name is also not on the first page. Call it nit-picking but it makes a big difference. For the reliability of the IMDb and the use of real names you should give this a try [[9]]. Although adding data to the IMDb is monitored and has some restrictions for contributing a fair amount of unreliable and unsourced data gets published.

Regarding COPPA filings. These are confidential documents mandated by the government but not intended to be published. So using them is a violation of BLP. (Jamesbeat (talk) 10:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC))

Re COPPA filings. Using them as a source is pretty much the archetype of what WP:NOR prohibits.David in DC (talk) 12:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It does not really matter what any of us think about IDMB or any other source unless we have a consensus. And even then consensus can change at the drop of a hat. The link provided by Jamesbeat that declares that IDMB is is unreliable for real names provides no proof of its allegations and still would not be binding even if it did provide such proof. But now that I know that thus may be the case I would be more inclined to look for additional internet sources that provide the same name that IDMB does. Arguing about the reliability of sources is all too often used as a way to promote ones agenda. Each Blp must be taken on a case by case basis. It is as simple as that. The Ignore all rules pillar is a very powerful rule. :Albion moonlight (talk) 22:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless a source is known to be reliable, we don't use it for biographical information. imdb is far from being known to be reliable, and we should never use it for biographical information that is at all sensitive. For such purposes we must demand unimpeachable sources. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 23:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

IMDb is not a reliable source for one reason: It uses user-submitted, unverified content. That is the definition of a non-reliable source. End of story. FCYTravis (talk) 00:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The story ends when a consensus says it ends. If someone wants to contest a sources reliabity they are allowed to do so by making a complaint to the Blp noticeboard. There is also a mediation committee but neither they or the arbitration committee decides content disputes. So here we are stuck in conundrum. There is no sense in Wikilawyering. Wiklawyering is disruptive. 00:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC): Albion moonlight (talk) 00:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no "consensus" about it - IMDb is not a reliable source for the purposes of sensitive and personal information. FCYTravis (talk) 01:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

FCYTravis is an administrator. What I now reccomend is that anyone who wants to use IDMB as a source should first check with another administrator before they do so. I just reread the section on Blps and realized that admins are given too much power in dealing with sources. So in cases where admins insist that a source can not be used one would be foolish to use it without checking with another admin first. Albion moonlight (talk)

It's not about whether I'm an admin or not :) It's about the simple fact that IMDb is composed of user-submitted content which is not necessarily verified or fact-checked. That means the information it contains is not necessarily accurate and there is no system of editing and supervision that works to ensure only truthful information is published. It would be like using Wikipedia as a source for a Wikipedia article. For biographies in particular, we need to take our information only from reliable sources, such as newspapers, reputable magazines and television programs, edited and fact-checked Web sites, etc. FCYTravis (talk) 08:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you please tell us where you get your information about IDMB ?

One way to get the birth name information in without ultimately needing the permission of admin('s) is to simply say something like,it is widely believed that such and such's real name is, and use several references to back it up. I have seen this done when referring to hate groups as hate groups. The fact that a member of the arbitration committee was actively involved in that case, suggests to me that it it is OK to do that. : Albion moonlight (talk) 23:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The case that I referenced above can be found here : 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. 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. AniMate 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. :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. FCYTravis (talk) 05:19, 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 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. --Jenny 05:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

NB: Until recently I edited Wikipedia using the account "Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The" --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 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 [10]

Pseudo information includes spurious claims from questionable websites. Clear enough? AniMate 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.: 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.

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 (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. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 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 Nil Einne (talk) 16:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

How then to square that with the part of WP:BLP that says this, and especially this:

"Caution should be applied when naming individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed (such as in certain court cases), it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context."?

And how to square it with this, and most especially this:

"Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". It is not Wikipedia's purpose to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. BLPs must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy."? David in DC (talk) 17:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

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 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. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 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? (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. 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. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 16:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes thats what I thought you were saying. I think your idea is a good one. Albion moonlight (talk) 00:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Dragon 695 is right in one way. We should not have a special policy for porn stars. WP should not reveal the real names of any persons who use pseudonyms to conceal their identity. The pornstar case should be cited merely as an particular example of this policy.

My proposed wording: Where a person uses a pseudonym to conceal their identity (e.g. whistleblowers, political bloggers, pornstars) then Wikipedia should respect their privacy and not reveal their real name. This policy even applies where the pseudonym is used to conceal criminal activity (revealing a real name in such a case is accusing that person of being a criminal - possibly slanderous). Where the real name has not been concealed or is widely known (this is a more onerous requirement than being merely verifiable) then it can be included.

Note that most actors do not use pseudonyms to conceal their real names but for other reasons such as another actor already using that name or chosing a name that sounds more macho, more American or whatever.Filceolaire (talk) 14:11, 25 July 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, one could argue that there is no point in concealing the birth name on Wikipedia. However that is the sole exception. How many "Jenna Jamesons" with pop star status are there in porn valley? I think AIM health care tests more than 1,200 actors monthly. Sure not everyone reaches the notability to be included on Wikipedia (although with 300 AVN advert nominations a year many will find their article stub pop up here sooner or later) Anyway, how many of them do you think will want to get another job maybe two years later on? The long careers are pretty much a thing of the past as many rush through the biz in months. With XXX web content on the rise most production companies don't build up stars anymore. So does it have any real world consequences to have your name revealed on Wikipedia by some asshole best boy or webmaster who makes a copy of your passport and later adds cast lists at imdb? You bet!

"that most actors do not use pseudonyms to conceal their real names but for other reasons" as stated by Filceolaire couldn’t be farther from reality.

(Sorry. I wasn't clear.This sentence refers to non-porn actors, many of whom have pseudonyms. I added this sentence to my post to show that the policy I proposed would not stop us revealing that John Wayne's real name was Marion Morrison.Filceolaire (talk) 19:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC))

There's a usually respected codex not under any circumstances to reveal the civil identity of another performer even if you are friends with. The story of a fan "who just tries to help" out Wikipedia by adding some alleged birth name found somewhere on the net, on any kind of blog, online forum, social network where people sign up with stolen identities etc. or even completely unsourced is just too hard to believe. In my opinion you can entirely forget about the assume good faith policy in such cases.

Pseudonyms are used to partly escape the social stigmata any sex worker will experience, unless s/hes already a trademark in pop culture. That's just one side to this story there's another. Wikipedia lists many performers from European countries, and what Jkp212 said about "Actors such as these who choose to have stages names are also intentionally concealing their birth name, which they have every right to do." pretty much hits the nail in the coffin.

Take for example France or Germany. In these countries you not only do you have a right of informational self-determination, you can even sue people over it. While every foreign language version of Wikipedia may have it's own set of rules the Wikipedia editors living in these countries can't escape their law system pointing to some "that's how we do it on Wikipedia" babble.

So with the purposed policy change you not only protect Wikipedia but also editors in these foreign countries who won't believe they will be traced and fined until it's too late.

The analogy with some politicians(!) public charity or tax returns used as primary sources for birth names just doesn't cut it. Limitations to this informational self-determination are allowed only in case of overriding public interest. This would be a given in case you run for major in some town, however with some regular porn star performer an European court would always let the right to conceal your identity outweigh public interest. It's pretty much a no brainer even some one without legal education should get just based on ethical values alone. This holds true for the majority of performers in the adult biz! Of course in such discussions people often cherry pick the few(!) super stars, some of which even released autobiographies featuring their real name.

Then this notion about how Wikipedia does not contain telephone numbers and addresses, hence no risk for a performer to be stalked. Heck, if an anonymous editor posts something like "today Madam Kristyna Zmrznlina lives in..." some random American village" . Now how many Zrmzlinas might live there? This is not Bel Air. I think you get the idea.

There seems to be a terrible bias among some admins in foreign wikis that it has to rain OTRS tickets before a performer gets what is basically a fundamental right.

How about whoever adds a real name to porn stars biography gets banned immediately? No I'm serious, I mean such a zero tolerance
policy would be way simpler than trying to explain most porn fans how to balance private interests versus public interests.

To handle such thing on a case-by-case basis binds unnecessary human resources and frankly most editors don't have what it takes to make such decisions on a level a real world judge would do it in a court.

and even in the few(!) cases where the birth name has been sourced with consent by the talent in question (e.g. autobiograhpy, interview) it wouldn't affect the article quality in my eyes.

"My own guideline would be to merely look and see if Answers.com gives there real name" Albion moonlight

As stated above answers.com is just one of many commercialized mirrors of Wikipedia. They just seem to have some time delay on the updates, and sometimes articles are editorially edited, most often not. Before making your own guideline try to think about where your freedom to make any such guideline ends. It sounds easy but it ain't, since we're not just talking sources here but personality rights. You might be able to generate thousands of Google hits for some source and it's worth nothing if you infringe the personality rights of a performer. In worst case scenario they might engage a lawyer and rightfully shred you to pieces.

" I would argue that they are no more threatened than Marilyn Manson" Dragon695

Marilyn Manson is a world famous rock star, he doesn't need to work anymore, it's nothing like the plain Jane 30 year old ex performer who just ended her valley career in favor for a little family. The word pornSTAR is pretty much misleading, they don't play in the same league, it's not even the same sport dude ;)

Who pays for the kids to visit a private school just because some clown thought it was a good idea to publicly spread real names of their parents via Wikipedia?

NEVER reveal any real names of adult actors unless they have disclosed these names themselves in autobiographies, interviews
or other activities outside porn they became notable for.

So once again:

Everyone has a right of informational self-determination, in many European countries this is written law. 
Limitations to this informational self-determination are allowed only in case of overriding public interest. For example a porn actor
becoming a politician (think Ilona Staller) or some mega success outside the biz (like pulling a Hilton, as you can't have it both ways)
or releasing an autobiography and cruising through talk shows in mass media, or becoming a mainstream actor using your real name.

The majority of porn actors uses stage names for the sole reason to conceal their civil identity, this should be reflected by the policy 
change. Further all references to birth names have to be wiped from the article history as well as all entry fields in the adult actors info box. 
Consistently all links to databases using unverified user submitted information which might infringe personality rights
of the articles subject have to be removed too.

It makes no sense to remove a name from the article and then backlink to it later on. Just as an aside there have been cases where even mainstream Hollywood actors have fought with imdb, however it goes without saying that most people in porn just can not afford such legal battles. My advices for adult actors is to enter a wrong name at imdb yourself. Sooner or later some creepy fan will import such names to Wikipedia anyway. Pretty much the same goes for birth dates...

One of the worst arguments brought up is "they" can't stop anyone from finding whatever questionable source was used to put in a birth name first place. It just doesn't matter, since Wikipedia is one primary source of information for many people and it's content is copied in hundreds of smaller special interest databases all over the internet. So there definitely is a reason for some one who wants to conceal an identity to remove any such data from Wikipedia.

In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm", so now act accordingly and act consequent. A little note for European performers: You should get that you don't live at the mercy of some honorable OTRS helpers, in many European countries it's entirely possible to take Wikipedia down with a preliminary injunction, until Wikipedia starts to protect personality rights with some special peer group of members (a legal education background would be great) that can react to such edits in time.

If such a thing can not be organized Wikipedia will have to adapt, like freezing all biographies and let every edit by an anyonymous editor be watched over by some other experienced editor BEFORE becoming visible in the article or the article history, by treating biographies on living persons like that, such articles would loose the possibility to be updated in real time in favor for protecting the personality rights of the subject.

For this idea to become reality it would only need a small change to the review system which gets currently tested on the German language Wikipedia. Those of you regulary patrolling porn star bios for vandalism might even agree with me that such a thing could save them huge amounts of time. Mean-spirited people would loose interest in adding crap to biographies real quick with such a system in place.

In the overwhelming majority of cases you will not be able to source that a name has been released with consent of the subject in question.

Why is this consent important at all? You can derive that from the right of informational self-determination which preempts and limits the rights of any public interest group. As to why a porn star has to be treated much differently from some mainstream actor living a sheltered, bodyguarded Hollywood media life should be obvious. Such persons get listed in the credits of blockbusters with their real name. Whenever Hollywood stars would decline to get credited with their real name and sign the contracts accordingly from the very start of their professional career, they had to be treated in the same way as porn stars on Wikipedia.

That holds also true in the Savanna Samson case brought up by Tabercil, where there was an article in the NYT featuring her birth name. There is no "the cat is out of the bag thing", if the NYT would publish a name without consent they would be liable. Get a decent lawyer and you could be looking at big $$$.

Conclusion: Although I much favor a zero tolerance policy I could live with what was purposed above. But you absolutely need to change this "other activities outside porn" sentence to something like "other activities outside porn they became notable with" to make any sense at all. Otherwise you might get adds in the likes of Madam X ranked second in the ice skating finals in junior high, her real name is blah blah and she entered porn in...

"There is no real benefit in publishing the names and no significant loss of context in not doing so" Jimbeat

Exactly. Of course there is a real benefit in NOT publishing the birth names of adult performers, apart from the fact that such a decision should be left to the performer first place and this fundamental right of informational self-determination is protected in many countries ;)

"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."
David in DC

Now this is something I can truly rally behind. xoxo 3vil-Lyn (talk) 18:35, 27 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.

I am of the second opinion, however I believe this is a particular case of a more general issue and I believe we should draft a policy for the general issue of when to reveal the real name of a person notable under a pseudonym.

My proposal is to add the following section to the BLP page, after the Well known public figure section and before the People who are relatively unknown section.

It should read as follows:

Pseudonyms

Where a person uses a pseudonym to conceal his or her identity (e.g. whistleblowers, political bloggers, pornstars) then Wikipedia should respect privacy and not reveal the real name. This policy even applies where the pseudonym is used to conceal criminal activity (revealing a real name in such a case is accusing that person of being a criminal — possibly libellous). Where the real name has not been concealed or is widely known (this is a more onerous requirement than being merely verifiable) then it can be included where it will add to an article.Filceolaire (talk) 19:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• I support this idea. People should not have to worry about being "outed" by Wikipedia. That's not our job. Kaldari (talk) 04:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose on the grounds that all WP material must be wp:verifiable, so the person's real name is actually on the public record already. If the WP editor could find it, then so could anybody else. Also, generally, it is unwise to stifle information. As an aside, the definition could be edited to be more accurate — e.g., his or her identity, not their identity, and libelous, not slanderous. Yours in rather spirited defense of freely available information, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Edited to incorporate these changes. Thanks. Filceolaire (talk) 09:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment This provision is already covered by verifiability and BLP, since any "outing" would have to be sourced to strong reliable sources, in which case the person has been outed anyway. I don't think it hurts to emphasize that compromising BLP information must be extremely well sourced, but I can see some being concerned about instruction creep. --Gimme danger (talk) 06:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The issue arose where WP editors were getting real names from minor blogs and from legal documents (such as age declarations and trademark registrations) to out pornstars real names. This change to BLP would make it clear that even if the person has been outed before on some obscure source that does not make it appropriate to out them on WP.Filceolaire (talk) 09:30, 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 {{fact}} to it). --Storkk (talk) 10:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - If their real name can be 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 verified then it should not be added. Ғїяеѕкатея^talk 12:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion

Hello Filceolaire :) Let me say, first, that I do like your idea of a more general approach, however I'm afraid your wording in the second part ("Where the real name has not been concealed or is widely known then it can be included where it will add to an article") doesn't help much, it might make things even worse. Look, you at no point have the right to make such a decision for a perfomer.

Not you, not Jimmy Wales ;), not even a hundred Wikipedia editors who might vote here can decide about whether or not a certain adult actors privacy rights should be abrogated.

Just look at Katja Kassin's case, some German admin made a Google search and said voilà a thousand hits for her birth name, so it's widely known and the name should be restored. What this particular editor overlooked was that he never was in the position to decide such matters according to the law of his country. Apart from the fact that neither IMDb nor any of the other fan databases are reputable sources and a birth name often adds nothing to a porn stars biography at all, since they are usually not known by their birth names.

What some people try to do here is transfer the privacy right of an individual to the community, that won't fly with me ;)

It doesn't matter whether a name has been concealed somewhere nor if it's widely known according to Google or similar search engines (anyone can spread such a thing all over the internet in no time - in hours even) given that Wikipedia is one primary source of information for many people.

The one thing that does matter is whether or not a birth name has been spread with the permission of the adult actor and that's about it. (as long as the birth name wasn't used in other notable activities outside the porn industry, as you can't have it both ways, see, e.g. Sibel Kekilli).

So even if the New York Times or any other paper or online zine for that matter would publish such a name without permission and the case goes to court, Wikipedia would not be allowed to cite the source as soon as it becomes clear that the name wasn't cleared. To prevent any such scenario right from the start it would be best to have a zero tolerance policy on porn star bios and work on the proposed changes to the Wikipedia editing system. Such a special treatment to biographies of living persons would make sense anyway, whenever dealing with articles at high risk of vandalism (porn stars, politicians during a campaign,...).

I do get a feeling though that article histories and back links to birth names are deliberately neglected all across the Wikipedia project (no matter the language), as if some people would think the actors are somewhat not technical savvy enough to realize how they are taken for a fool.

So to push this policy change, ALL article histories (including discussion sites) which contained birth names at some point of their revision history that got removed due to WP:BLP or OTRS tickets, should be flagged and then wiped by a bot. Same goes for the birth name field in the adult actors template. The links to filmographies should be checked on a case-by-case basis, sometimes people try to include birth names as pseudonyms. You could even organize a team in the pornography portal that flags articles. 3vil-Lyn (talk) 13:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)