| Revision as of 02:26, 14 November 2011 edit186.45.69.38 (talk) Some of those contributions are only a fortnight old.← Previous edit |
Revision as of 16:23, 17 November 2011 edit undoOff2riorob (talk | contribs)80,325 edits arc - stale two monthsNext edit → |
| Line 9: |
Line 9: |
|
{{WikiProject Trinidad and Tobago|Trinidad and Tobago=yes|class=Start|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Trinidad and Tobago|Trinidad and Tobago=yes|class=Start|importance=low}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==RfC expired== |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* - RfC expired, no "compromise" reached at this point |
|
|
|
|
|
# So the RFC is expired. ] on the various noticeboards, it failed to attract significant attention. I believe, due to Off2riorob's latest edits that he's already realised that the proposed material is more than acceptable according to ] (and so was the properly cited version that was being removed when I joined this discussion). I say this because the tune has changed from "BLP" to "MIGHT BE UNDUE?/MIGHT CAUSE HARM?" and the ever popular "IDL" during our time here. The consensus of Misplaced Pages as a whole is that such content is acceptable when it's being done to comment on a MAJOR, WELL REPORTED, WELL KNOWN scandal involving public figure, as we can see from several other BLP entries. It is my firmly held belief that the removal of ANY form of this information that meets the wikipedia policies of ], ], ] and ] will be a direct violation of Misplaced Pages's policies and core principles. This information has been blocked from the article for no valid reason for far too long and based on the history of the article and it's discussion I honestly doubt that there will be any willing compromise any time soon. So the question becomes what's the next step? ]? ] (]) 02:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:As I have said as a compromise I would be willing to not remove (although I personally wouldn't add it) my offering - '''A private intimate video featuring Ayoung-Chee was stolen from her boyfriend's computer whilst it was undergoing repair and leaked to the the internet in 2009.''' - ] (]) 02:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I'd still prefer to see no mention of this, <s>but will live with the above</s>. Where in the article? --] (]) 02:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I still don't support inclusion either but I am feeling endless circular pressure from this dynamic IP - I don't see a good place to put it really, where would it sit best? I think it has undue weight in its own section.] (]) 02:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Off2riorob, I have already asked you to provide sources to verify the claims made in your statement. Failure to do so actually constitutes a violation of Misplaced Pages's ]. There is a world of difference between reporting what was said by one of the involved parties and what you are presenting above. I am asking you, very seriously, to remove or edit your proposed version in each of it's incarnations from this talkpage unless you can provide actual proof of the claims you are presenting as "fact". (Perhaps police records to indicate that the material was actually stolen, or even an article from an RS that says that it was stolen, instead of "Gallery said it was stolen"?) Alternatively please see the version that several of us were discussing above (or even the very old, archived version by Tokek that I placed above for you), as it is verifiable from the cited materials (as was the version you recently removed from the article). Also, the dynamic IP is assigned to me by my ISP, I do not believe that there is any doubt as to which contributions are being made by me, as I seem to be the only one active here with a Trinibagonian IP. If you take issue with my contributions, I ask that you feel '''very''' free to request arbitration. Oh, and as for your claim of circular pressure, that's actually quite incorrect IMO. I'm being totally direct and discussing Misplaced Pages's policies, which you seem to be quite content to ignore or misinterpret when it suits you as far as I can tell. I might be making a whole slew of newbie mistakes, but at the very worst they are newbie mistakes, and don't involve me trying to manipulate Misplaced Pages's policy pages to meet my interpretations. I '''very''' firmly stand behind my earlier statements about ] btw.] (]) 04:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::#There is enough coverage of this event to establish that a video of Anya Ayoung-Chee having sex was posted on the net. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::#The assertion that the video was leaked by a computer repair man is the unconfirmed explanation of the boyfriend. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::#The video was probably leaked without Anya Ayoung-Chee's consent. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Do both of you, Rob and IP, agree with those points? --] (]) 07:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::I support inclusion of some minor, innocuous statement on the topic. Omitting any mention is inconsistent with what is presented in comparable articles: ] and ]. As for the three points immediately above posed by Anthonyhcole (I changed them from bullets to numbered items): I agree with (1). Item (2) seems to be true, although the word "unconfirmed" is not from the sources, is it? Item (3) The phrase "probably leaked ..." ... is not from the sources, is it? How about this for the wording: '''A private intimate video featuring Ayoung-Chee leaked to the the internet in 2009''' - that would avoid speculating about whether the video was or was not stolen, etc. --] (]) 13:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::I agree with 1 and 2, and cannot comment on whether or it was done with her consent, item 3 is also irrelevant to the matter at hand. And again, the issue is NOT one of her having a video showing her having sex on the internet, but the '''scandal''' that it caused in the life of (a) public figure(s). That was the original topic of discussion, until it was . I consider Noleander's most recent suggestion to be considerably more accurate than the ones presented by Rob, but I wish to point out the obvious. By repeatedly removing information in the interest of considerations outside of Misplaced Pages's policies, we are moving dangerously closer to the claimed "trivia" that Rob and Mike so vehemently opposed. If included in the form that Noleander has most recently suggested, I wouldn't be very surprised if weeks or perhaps months from now, the information was removed as "trivia" by an uninvolved editor with a comment along the lines of "So she has sex, so what? It's how we all got here, get over it." The content deserves to be included specifically because it is obviously a notable scandal, that has been well reported around the world. To divert from placing NPOV material in the interest of "we might cause some form of harm" is NOT in line with ], and neither is exclusion of material that is acceptable (and required) according to Misplaced Pages because we personally may not like the idea of it's inclusion. The considerable delay during the RFC has allowed me to again review the policies and caused me to swing away from my earlier willingness to agree with Anthonyhcole's appeal to empathy. I'm also less inclined to agree to using fewer sources, for fear that there will be those who choose to claim in future, that there was insignificant coverage. Misplaced Pages, the site that we are on, has very clearly defined policies that detail what sort of content is fit for inclusion, why don't we put all of this to rest and just start following them for a change? |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::I am willing, though only ''barely'' at this point, to accept the version that goes: '''"Ayoung-Chee filmed a sex tape with long-term boyfriend Wyatt Gallery that was widely leaked to the Internet in 2009. Gallery said the footage was stolen from his computer while undergoing repair."''' with only two of the RS entries as suggested above, on the condition that the list of articles be included on the Talkpage, or it's archives, in the event that they're needed in the future.] (]) 16:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::Whether she consented to the release of the video is important if we are to understand what impact it is likely to have had on her. If she consented, fine. If not, this is akin to rape, and telling people the video is out there is abetting it. Can't you see that? And you still haven't explained what is the good aspect of including this, to counteract the very likely hurt it will achieve. By the way, do you know this woman? --] (]) 16:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::AnthonyCole, not consenting to a sextape being released that you made with your boyfriend and another girl is absolutely NOTHING akin to rape.] (]) 17:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::I suspect it might be ''something'' like rape. But then, we're all blokes here, so probably aren't qualified to comment. I'll ask at ]. --] (]) 17:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::::Whether or not it is "like rape" is irrelevant. The material is not appropriate for a ]. Per the BLP policy: "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Misplaced Pages's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." This seems like a pretty clear-cut case to me. Just because there are citations for something doesn't mean it is appropriate to include in a BLP. There is a reason the policy includes sentences like the ones above rather than just repeating the ] policy. It is exactly for cases like this. ] (]) 18:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::::Thanks for pointing that out. There's no way this doesn't breach "... the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." --] (]) 18:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::::::Kaldari you might want to actually consider reading the whole BLP instead of just the first few lines. If that's too much to ask of established editors, you should at the very least read ] which is a subsection of the BLP. If it's too much to ask that you follow the link, let me quote it for you here, as you were kind enough to furnish your own quote: ''In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out.'' As you say that seems pretty clear-cut to me, and there is quite probably a reason that the policy includes bits like that one. Do you care to take a guess as to what that reason might be? |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::::::Anthony, your comparison of us including the information that she was involved in a scandal to rape is akin to saying that CNN, ABC, CBS and news agencies around the world have repeatedly raped her. I'm guessing that they don't share your views. The connection is spurious, and nothing more than an appeal to emotion. As Kaldari pointed out, it's also irrelevant. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. NOPV, Verifiable material from reliable sources cannot be considered sensationalist. Nor can the proposed inclusions be considered titillating in any way shape or form. Anthonyhcole, for all of the talk of wikipedia providing this information increasing visibility of the tape, I wish to point out that again, for me, the first page worth of google results makes it very clear that the sex tape information is quite prominently displayed for anyone searching for "Anya Ayoung Chee". In short, pretending that it doesn't exist for the sake of our own moral values will not make the notable scandal cease to have existed. The links provided above show that even a local RS is more than willing to mention the scandal as a feature of her life despite it being systematically excluded from Misplaced Pages for all this time. There are other sources that have done the same. I cannot see how pretending that it does not exist will reduce any potential harm, and the consensus on Misplaced Pages in general seems to be that such content is noteworthy and has been included in several other Articles. As an aside, it seems that mention of rape (real or otherwise) has also been included on other articles. Off2riorob, one who is staunchly opposed to the inclusion of the mention of the scandal (to the extent of altering the header of the discussion a year after the fact) seemed to be strongly of the opinion that she did not suffer significant harm. This can be verified from his comments above. Now, your turn Anthony. Wouldn't the exclusion of this NPOV, V, NOR, material be in direct opposition to the core principles and policies of Misplaced Pages? This is not a site to collect information that we LIKE. This is supposed to be an Encyclopedia. Where information relating to subjects can be found. We are not proposing to put the video, or a link to the video in the article. We are discussing mentioning a notable scandal in the life of a public figure. You yourself noted that the policies and guidelines of this site allow for the inclusion of this material. Can you present a clear cut reason that is backed up by actual policy for it's exclusion? If so, please provide a link. PLEASE. I've been asking for that for over a MONTH, and all I get are variations on ], Policies that don't actually apply, and run around.] (]) 01:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, but I just don't see how the sex tape with her boyfriend is notable and relevant. If she were a porn star or promoting this tape as part of her career, I would call it notable and relevant. As it stands, it's just a titillating news story that was good for boosting ad views at CNN and will be forgotten about as soon as everyone's had there fill of voyeurism. We should look at BLPs from the perspective of a person's entire life, not just whatever the web is interested in at the moment. How does this event relate to her life in a meaningful way? Has she discussed it's impact on her, or has she just tried to explain what happened and moved on? Why do you believe this is important enough to include in an encyclopedia? Does it really help us to understand the subject? So far I'm unconvinced, and thus I think we should err on the side of caution, as the BLP policy dictates. ] (]) 03:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
You are right, IP. I am addressing emotion. I'm leaving it to others to address relevance and noteworthiness, and they're making a good case that it is trivial. Emotion is real. Emotional harm is real. I believe the likely real emotional harm we would do by including this fact trumps any other argument for or against inclusion. Addressing your points: |
|
|
|
|
|
*"NOPV, Verifiable material from reliable sources cannot be considered sensationalist." Yes it can. |
|
|
|
|
|
*"pretending that it doesn't exist for the sake of our own moral values will not make the notable scandal cease to have existed." Yes, mine is an argument about morality. This is not about pretending anything. It's about not compounding harm done to a victim. |
|
|
|
|
|
*"I cannot see how pretending that it does not exist will reduce any potential harm." Not including a mention in our article can reasonably be expected to send fewer people off on a search for the video than including it would. |
|
|
|
|
|
*"such content is noteworthy and has been included in several other Articles" The whole point of this discussion is to determine whether it is noteworthy; simply asserting it is misses the point of all this. That other stuff exists, is no argument to put it here. What we determine here may well affect the content on those other articles. |
|
|
|
|
|
*"Wouldn't the exclusion of this NPOV, V, NOR, material be in direct opposition to the core principles and policies of Misplaced Pages?" Including it would certainly breach BLP. |
|
|
|
|
|
I have addressed each of the points you directed to me. Would you return the courtesy? There is a real likelihood that inclusion would compound the hurt, by pointing more people to this video. What actual good would inclusion of this embarrassing but trivial event serve? Do you have any personal connection with the subject? --] (]) 05:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::@Kaldari, The sex tape is not notable or relevant in and of itself, (unless you like that sort of thing as Off2riorob apparently does according to his contributions far above), nor was it the topic under discussion prior to . I've repeatedly asked why the change was made prior to the opening of the RfC, but have had no reply. What is notable and relevant is the '''scandal''' that it caused in the life of '''(a) public figure(s)''', which you can see was the actual topic under discussion, and the topic of the previous RfC (which got even less attention than this last one). The scandal was reported on by CNN, ABC, CBS, agencies connected to ] and local media along with others that would not be considered reliable in and of themselves (TMZ) but may become acceptable for inclusion according to wikipedia's policy based on the reporting in CNN, ABC, CBS, LOCAL MEDIA, etc.(see ]). Several links to reliable sources have been provided above, and again, should in no way be considered a complete list. The scandal is still being mentioned in the media up to fairly recently. As some of the early commenters pointed out both here and in the archived version the scandal is one of the very few notable things about the subject, and is similar to content on other BLP entries. All of the points that you are raising have ALREADY been addressed several times over on this talk page, I would like to invite you to actually read through it. If you'd like to know what the subject said in her comments to the media, you are free to review the articles linked here or elsewhere and I encourage you to do so. I also wish to openly ask if you actually bothered to read the BLP policy in full, in particular the rather unambiguous piece quoted above which can be found on the BLP via ]? If the material is being presented in an NPOV manner as suggested above, and merely reporting what has been covered by media houses the world over, preventing this information from being included is no longer "erring on the side of caution", but instead ] all over again. You and others claim that this is titillating trivia. Let me ask you quite plainly, what EXACTLY is titillating you when you read the proposed versions above? |
|
|
|
|
|
::@Anthony, simply claiming "yes it can" does not actually show how, at the very least you're going to have to explain why such material shouldn't be given due weight in an article with very little that can be considered to be due any actual weight at all. Again Misplaced Pages's (the site we are currently on) policies say that whether or not the subject might like the inclusion of well sourced, NPOV material about the scandals affecting public figures, they should be included. Global coverage in various media is what makes the information noteworthy. That has been shown to have occurred repeatedly in this discussion and links have been provided. Claiming that it's "not noteworthy" does not make it so, and perhaps more importantly, Misplaced Pages's policy for what is noteworthy doesn't work the same way with content as it does with articles. You can read all about that at ] and I invite you and others to do so. (That's one of those "policy" things that I've been mentioning.) If we expand on your logic, might we not end up with "nothing unpleasant should be ever be mentioned on Misplaced Pages, because that might cause people to use the very search engines that most probably brought them to wikipedia in the first place, to find information"? Misplaced Pages is not censored on emotional grounds according to any of it's policies as far as I can tell. In fact I think you might benefit from reading ] which seems to adequately explain why your "emotional" and "moral" appeals are invalid, based on your comments mentioning a neologism above I suspect that you are already highly familiar with the fact that Misplaced Pages includes content that Public figures may not like and that "could create some sort of harm". Given the existence of that article, I'm fairly certain you are aware of how that played out, and of course that article links to one on a "controversy" which affected a public figure. Perhaps we should consider what was decided THERE and apply it HERE, as it would only be fair to assume that such decisions could flow both ways? Or how about we actually follow wikipedia's policies instead of only the parts that people choose to like? I mean seriously, have you people even read the policies that you claim to be upholding recently? |
|
|
|
|
|
::I'd be happy to address your questions, Anthony. |
|
|
|
|
|
* The site that you are currently on is called Misplaced Pages. It's purpose is to compile information relevant to subjects in a NPOV manner according to various policies set down by, ] itself. These policies are available to read and have been linked to numerous times on this discussion page. Misplaced Pages is not run by the policies of "do I like it" or "how do I feel about that". Refusal to include ], ], ] content is contrary to the core principles of Misplaced Pages. I don't know if you can understand this at all, but it seems to me that when you ask "what good does including it do" you're really asking "what exactly is the point of putting ANYTHING on Misplaced Pages at all". If you thought that including valid, verifiable, npov information in an encyclopedia was a bad thing, you probably wouldn't have registered a screen name. Misplaced Pages clearly says that ] in their ] policy page (you don't have to believe me, check for yourself, PLEASE). |
|
|
|
|
|
* Regarding any personal connection with the subject: No, despite being a Trinbagonian I have none other than that I've seen the information in the local and international media (and just between us, Swampfire seems to be more familiar with the actual contents of the videos than I am, as I've never really cared to view them). I don't know her personally, and don't particularly feel one way or the other about the prospect of meeting her personally. I also doubt that Tokek, Noleander, 69.223.185.201, 99.63.190.172, Swampfire, 17.103.181.126, 24.79.211.19, 98.71.94.221 or any of the many others who have attempted to include some form of the information over the last couple of years have any personal connection to the subject, but you'd probably have to ask them. Do you want to give that a shot, might be worth the effort since we've started asking? Oh and I suppose I really ought to ask, since we are just asking, after all..... do YOU have any personal connection to the subject? (I feel like I should be cueing the band to strike up a series of dramatic notes like in the old cliffhangers or something.) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Again I figure that this RfC thing has failed to gain any form of consensus despite Anthony's good efforts, which I really do appreciate even though I clearly don't agree with him. So as a Newbie, I'm asking what's the next step here? What's the next step in getting this thing resolved and how do we go about getting that done?] (]) 08:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::No I have no connection with the subject. I asked, because you mentioned where you are. There is no chance of the stolen private video being mentioned in this article. The article has been indefinitely semiprotected by one of Misplaced Pages's most experienced and knowledgeable administrators because of "BLP issues that appear likely to continue." You have been told that the content is not noteworthy or relevant by another highly experienced and knowledgeable administrator. Take their advice. --] (]) 11:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::I believe that she's currently in the USoA which isn't where I am, and it's odd that you give that reason, you see I mentioned my location over a MONTH ago, well before the RfC was opened. While I doubt that you were intentionally trying to mislead me by making the statement about there being "no chance...", you might want to check to see what semi-protection involves before telling the Newbie the wrong thing next time. Here, let me provide the link, ]. And I'd really be rather more inclined to take advice, if the experienced and knowledgeable admin had said something on this talk page, rather than an edit comment that really has nothing to do with the topic under discussion. For all I know, they didn't bother to read the content of this talk page. You see, my time on here has shown me that people on this site have a really odd habit of not quite paying attention to what they've read and substituting what they'd like others to believe something means. So again, what's the next step in the process of getting this resolved and how do we go about getting it to start happening before the turn of the century?] (]) 14:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Goodbye. I won't be watching this page any more. --] (]) 14:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Some mention of her sex tape should be made== |
|
|
|
|
|
...just saying... ] (]) 16:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== This NEEDS TO BE DELETED == |
|
|
|
|
|
This article is pointless. Even though there is information about her to cite it as true, there doesn't need to be an article about someone as irrelevant as Anya Ayoung-Chee. What impact has she made globally? There doesn't need to be an article about her right now maybe in years to come if she manages to do something worthwhile and notable (winning Project Runway is NOT notable). ] (]) 01:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
It's as notable as anything else that has full articles here.--] (]) 03:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I disagree that this needs to be deleted based on ]. While I agree, and have previously stated here, that there's generally little about her that's worthy of note, the subject was a national representative at a well known, well covered, international competition. (More than one if you wish to count the project runway competition.) There's also the matter of the unquestionable international scandal caused by the release of the sex videos, that she's now mentioned openly on a television interview, but given the outcome of the previous RFC's and lack of response about what the next step in resolving the inclusion of the matter, I strongly doubt that it's going to ever see the light of day as long as current sentiment, and lack of interest in following the clearly written policies, prevails.] (]) 00:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Archiving things still under discussion == |
|
== Archiving things still under discussion == |
If people are clearly still discussing it up to a couple of weeks ago, as anyone who actually cares can see by the timestamps on the previous comments, you really shouldn't just try to "sweep the whole thing under the rug", as it were. BY the way, she recently made a very public comment about the scandal and the tapes on a filming of a "post runway" show that was done not too long ago. (Even some of my previous contributions also showed that she commented previously, but that was ignored.)
By the way I'm still waiting on a reply as to what the next step required for the inclusion of the cited, NPOV, and blatantly notable, content is. Any suggestions?
186.45.69.38 (talk) 02:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
