| Revision as of 19:20, 28 December 2009 editJBsupreme (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers30,453 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 03:57, 27 February 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,345,202 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 3 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 3 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Internet culture}}, {{WikiProject Canada}}, {{WikiProject Biography}}.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion |
| (167 intermediate revisions by 52 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{noindex|reason=WHY? Someone will probably delete it if not explained.}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|class=C|listas=Star Wars Kid|1= |
|
{{ambox |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Internet culture |importance=Mid}} |
|
| type = content |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Canada |qc=yes |importance=Low}} |
|
| image = ] |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography }} |
|
| text = This article is covered by Misplaced Pages's ''']''' policy. Under this policy it has been decided by the majority not to include any mention of the subject's real name in the article or on the talk page. Any addition of the real name without first establishing a consensus to do so will be '''removed immediately'''.}} |
|
|
|
}} |
|
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}} |
|
|
{{press|year=2008|section=May 2008 |
|
{{press|year=2008|section=May 2008 |
|
|title=A simple way to avoid being the next Star Wars Kid |
|
|title=A simple way to avoid being the next Star Wars Kid |
|
|org=The Times |
|
|org=The Times |
|
|date=May 4, 2008 |
|
|date=May 4, 2008 |
|
|url=http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article3866927.ece |
|
|url=http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/ingear/tech_and_net/article90439.ece |
|
|author=] |
|
|author=] |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|NOTE="blp" parameter not used since this page has a custom BLP notice|1= |
|
|
|
| algo = old(30d) |
|
{{WikiProject Internet culture|class=Start|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
|
| archive = Talk:Star Wars Kid/Archive %(counter)d |
|
{{WikiProject Canada|qc=yes|class=Start|importance=Low}} |
|
|
|
| counter = 5 |
|
{{WPBiography|living=yes|class=Start|priority=Low|needs-infobox=yes}} |
|
|
|
| maxarchivesize = 60K |
|
|
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} |
|
|
| minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
| minthreadsleft = 1 |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Werdnabot|age=30}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Why Not Named == |
|
|
|
|
|
Why is he not named and why are there no references to any of the things he said to the media? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 04:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
:This has been debated at great length, multiple times. There is a slim majority of editors that believe that the most important policy regarding the mention of the kid's name is ]. In particular, this policy states, "...This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Misplaced Pages editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." ] (] | ]) 04:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: I was wondering the same thing. I could understand not providing libelous information or things that are not conducive to a biography. However, seeing as how it is valid, if not pertinent, information to a biography, and seeing as this ''is'' a biography, it would seem that it should be required information (I find it strange that a biography anywhere would not actually have the name of the person it is of.) Misplaced Pages, nor it's editors, should censor information simply because someone doesn't like it (if I recall, there is a Misplaced Pages policy that states that Misplaced Pages is not censored.) Almost every Misplaced Pages biography of a current political figure has a criticism section that could be considered by some to be controversial and damaging to the person. As do many others of athletes, actors, commentators, pundits, entertainers, other memes, etc. Aside from all of this, being that the kid's family filed a lawsuit in court, it is all public information and therefor Misplaced Pages would only be relaying information (which is all it really does anyway.) I'm sorry if I am only repeating statements made previously, but it seems pretty cut and dry to me. It's rather silly to not put a very important piece of information in an article simply because it might hurt someones feelings. Especially since the videos are out there reguardless of whether or not we know his name. I mean, is the idea of Wiki readers knowing his name going to really be that much more of a problem to him? ] (]) 23:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::You are repeating things that have been said before. I will repeat the responses. You say that because his name is so available, it won't be a bigger problem for him. On the other hand, because his name is so available, it is no problem for people who want to know it to find it. Take a look at ], "Content that is judged to violate Misplaced Pages's biographies of living persons policy, or that violates other Misplaced Pages policies (especially neutral point of view) or the laws of the U.S. state of Florida where Misplaced Pages's servers are hosted, will also be removed." Including his name is a ''clear'' violation of ]. Just because it is factual does not necessarily mean it is worthy of inclusion in the article. ]. You mention another argument, specifically "because X article does it, so must this article." We have a page for exactly that, ]. Every article is unique, and policies are guidelines. Take a look at ] and ]. We must use common sense. Most editors do not see that anything is gained by including his name except our claim to lack of censorship, but do see that we would be assisting in his victimization. More editors believe the latter is more important, and that is why his name is absent. ] (] | ]) 02:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: I understand all of what you are saying and it would seem that a majority of the arguments seem zero sum. All but the censorship part, which seems in favor of including his name. ] Does make a mention of when not to use names, but the cases in which it mentions (as far as I can tell) are only those related to the person the article is about, not the main subject themselves. I also understand that little can be gained by adding his name, but can not that argument be used on virtually half the information on this site? I mean, how many people use wiki to find gobs of useless information and trivia? Also, my point about comparing other articles was not simply "well, that article did it, so why not this on?" It was more like; Every article on a war gives the dates of that war, every article of a political figure gives his alliance, every article on a plant gives its genus and species, every comic book character's article gives the name of the company that owns its rights, etc. Every biography article on here (at least of the hundreds of them I have read) gives the birth name of the articles subject. Now, I understand special circumstances, but in response to your last point, I ask a question; How does wikipedia displaying his name attribute to his victimization? Forgive me if I seem hardheaded and argumentative, it is not my intent. I truly do wish to know and understand the processes on wikipedia and this seems like a fine line issue and a good place for me to start to understand the intricacies. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::: Ok, let me respond with equivalent rhetoric. I've read and understood your arguments, but they are mostly zero sum. Therefore, I will respond to the weakest of points. Since this article is covered by the BLP policy, we can't include any information we so choose. And saying ] in a different way does not mean you are not using ]. Read the policies I've quoted for you. ] is clear that the name should say out. ] specifically states that it has a lower priority than ]. You're making the same argument as every other ethicless media outlet that assisted in his original victimization, "since other people have done it, there is no harm if we do it to." You are correct that this is a fine line issue. I've said that the majority of editors favor exclusion of his name. It was a slim majority, but a consistent majority nonetheless. There are Wikipedians who agree with you, that his name should be included. But considering this has been debated several times, and inclusion has been rejected several times, I think we should leave it at that, rather than call for another RFC. ] (] | ]) 07:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::: But is this article even a biography? It seems to me it is just an article about an internet phenomenon/meme. From that perspective, his name is pretty much irrelevant. This is not an article about the kid, it's about the video. If you add his name, then ] issues arise. ] (]) 11:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::: If you check the top of this page, you will see that it is labeled as a biography. Regardless of that, the identity of any person involved in a situation or event is not just relevant, but pertinent as far as collecting information on that event. Especially when considering that this is an encyclopedia and that it's primary objective is to give as much basic and relevant information as possible regardless of weather or not it is important as far as every day facts. This article is not about "the video." This is an article about a video, the ensuing videos based on the original video, its mention in multiple medias, the person involved, the court case that followed, and pretty much all other information revolving around the person that the article is based on. ] (]) 01:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::So, I check back in after a while, and I see that the same "WTF?" question is getting asked. I'm still going to ask it too. Almost every source used to write this article uses the name. We don't second guess reliable sources, we mirror them. They, all with their professional legal and ethics departments, have almost every one determined that use of the name is ethical and legal. When you're writing about someone, and you can verify the name, you use it. That's a basic part of anything about a person. There are very few exceptions to that, and simple embarrassment is not one of them. |
|
|
:::::::All that being the case, the sheer number of times that even anonymous editors have come and asked this question, many clearly in good faith, should tell us that we're not doing this right. When you say a "slim majority" favors exclusion, have you counted all the anonymous editors who have ''bothered to stop by the talk page'' to say "Hey, this doesn't seem right"? It's unusual for that to happen, and for every time that happens there are probably dozens to hundreds of people who wonder but don't want or know how to say anything about it. The name is not a secret, and it's certainly not unverifiable. BLP prohibits the violation of privacy, true, but the name at this point is by no means private. |
|
|
:::::::I've edited anonymously for a while, and was considering coming back, but to see the same old falsehoods get trotted out here is rather discouraging. In reality, editor after editor (including but not limited to anon readers) have come here to ask "What's the deal with this?", and believed it wrong, while the same few support exclusion and claim they're the "majority" or that BLP supports them. I strongly doubt at this point, if we counted all of those who have supported vs. all against, that those against are anywhere near a majority. And they shouldn't be, because they're incorrect. BLP provides for exclusion of privacy violations or unverifiable information. The name is neither one, it is public knowledge (for better or worse), and it is certainly verifiable through plenty of highly credible sources. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 12:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::A debate about anons supporting and opposing inclusion is impossible as we have know way of knowing how many people read the article, acknowledged the absence of the name and did not add to the discussion page. Optional feedback always has a negative bias. I see that you really don't respect my opinion since you're already referring to it as "falsehoods" so put up an RFC if you wish and we can vote down inclusion a fourth time. ] (] | ]) 16:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::You also do not seem to respect our opinion as you referred to what I said as rhetorical arguments, when in reality, I was simply trying to understand the process and was having trouble seeing how your arguments were the optimum outcome of following Misplaced Pages guidelines. Although I am not an article editor, I do try to contribute to discussions on talk pages. And on this one, it would seem that there has been an abundance of reasons, good ones at that, to include the name. You, the lone voice opposing inclusion in this thread thus far, only seem to come up with one shaky reason; Misplaced Pages would be one more website among thousands to reveal his name and this could possibly (somehow) further attribute to his victimization. That just doesn't seem like a good enough reason to combat all the other reasons, like the fact that this is an encyclopedia. Also, one more point that I'm not sure has been made in the past; He used school equipment for every single aspect of the vid. School camera, school film, school golf ball retriever, etc. And in the end, all he did was look kinda silly for swinging the thing around. Big deal. All the victimization came from his peers. I would venture to guess that the press revealing his name added nominal amounts of ridicule in comparison what he had already faced. I think that most kids had to deal with some sort of bullying in school, but if some guy from Illinois knows their name, does it really make it any worse? And if so, then we should remove the entire article under the same grounds since it is so easy to find his name anyway. ] (]) 04:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::I'm probably wasting my time responding to a "no, you are" level comment, but there's a few things I feel I should point out. This is the dictionary.com definition of rhetoric: "the art of making persuasive speeches; oratory." Not sure how you came to be offended by that, I guess you were looking for a way to establish that I had been equally condescending. This is the second time you've tried to undermine my argument simply by saying that it is weak. You think I am the lone voice of opposition, yet had you been watching the history of either the talk page or the article itself, you will see multiple established editors preserving the absence of his name. Really, I am the most generous, spending my time to explain to you why we've maintained the article this way. Let me sum up my arguments for you one time. If you want to take the pure policy approach, then trivially the name should be excluded, per ] '''and''' ]. If you want to take a ] approach, the name should still be excluded on the grounds that "everyone has done it" is not a refutation of immorality. I will say no more. ] (] | ]) 05:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
There is simply no reason not to include his name. ] could cover this, but it's essentially a case of ignoring the facts over a pointless fear of hurt feelings. Misplaced Pages should include the facts if they're relevant, and the idea that somehow identifying someone who's name is public knowledge is against policy is ludicrous. The biggest problem with the article now is the ''unsourced'', not the sourced. ] (]) 19:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm replacing the phrase "the student" with his real name. Censoring his name is ridiculous, especially when it's from his own biography page. I'm surprised that no one has changed it since , but it's frankly one of the dumbest editorial decisions I've seen on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 22:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC) (and modified per BLP by Slp1) |
|
|
|
|
|
:See ]. ] (] | ]) 23:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
=== I'm out === |
|
|
Really, this type of thing is the reason I ended up leaving. When did we start "voting" on what sources do or don't say? When did any talk page discussion become a vote, or a shoutdown? When did the opinion of anonymous editors stop mattering, because they can't strictly be counted? Can we say the number for inclusion can't be accurately counted, since they face derision as "immoral" if they dare to disagree, and many, seeing such a discussion, will quietly move along even if they do disagree with those engaging in such name-calling and incivility? You have every right to disagree, but you don't have any right to be rude and condescending, or to call those who disagree with you "immoral" as though such is a foregone conclusion. You like to quote policies that I don't even believe are relevant (BLP protects against private or poorly sourced information being placed into an article, the information here is public and available from highly reliable sources), but ] and ] applies to every discussion, every time. |
|
|
And we most certainly can quantify a rough number of anons who have identified the exclusion of the name as problematic. Take a look through the archives. How many articles have that level of anonymous editor participation on the talk page? I imagine you could find me some, I doubt you could find me many. And most of them come here puzzled to ask the same question-"Where's the name?", and receive a response that's patronizing and dismissive at best and rude more often than not. |
|
|
Of course, those editors wouldn't see or participate in an RFC, more likely than not. But of course we could canvass a "vote", much like GeorgeWilliamHerbert did last time around. But that's not why you'd want to do it that way and ignore what's already transpired, is it? ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 03:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''Q. Where's the name? A. In the first source.''' If we wanted to fully censor the name, we would take down citations to sources that mention the name. But as it stands, anyone who wants to see the name of Star Wars Kid can look at the first 100 words of the first source that the article cites. The sources are doing a good job of keeping the name up; Misplaced Pages need not duplicate that effort ;-) --] (] | ]) 14:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::Then why would we bother to write Misplaced Pages at all? ] (]) 06:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::Exactly. BLP doesn't remotely apply here because its been repeatedly reported by many reliable news sources. Even if the actions were taken by someone else, trying to hide his name does nothing and amounts to censorship. If no one was reporting his name and some fringe site found it, it might be a BLP issue, but that isn't the case here.--] (]) 08:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== RFC == |
|
|
|
|
|
A dispute has been reopened that has been repeated again and again in the past. Editors are introducing the Star Wars kid's real name into the article citing ]. On the other side, editors are removing his name citing ] as he was victimized and the policy states, "This is of profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Misplaced Pages editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." Should the SWK's real name be included in the article or does this assist in his victimization? ] (] | ]) 23:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::So you're saying that because this person has been victimized at some point, we can't say his name, even though this is a biographical article ''about him''? ] (]) 23:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::The individual is not notable, the event is. We aren't writing the story of his life. We are writing about the internet meme. So no, it is not necessary to include his name. ] (] | ]) 23:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::I agree; if one were to ask that person their view, there's little doubt that they would strongly request their name be omitted. This isn't a case of whitewashing a BLP, it's a case where the person's notoriety is a direct result of unlawful activity against him by others. He's sued, and had settlement payments from, the perpetrators - so clearly there was a case for damages. Let's not compound the suffering of the victim? ] (]) 00:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I concur with the established consensus that this article should remain without his real name. This is not his biography. It is a discussion of a brief, unfortunate episode in a person's life, that is not improved one whit by the name of the individual involved. ] does not trump our moral and ethical responsibility to a living young man whose foolish decision (to trust friends), resulted in serious consequences to his life and reputation. I'll also note that the decision to omit the name has been externally and approvingly reviewed in ] by ], Harvard and Oxford University Internet law prof. --] (]) 00:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC) --] (]) 00:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:Agree. If this were a biographical article, it would be at the persons name, and it would contain information about him. This is an article about the viral video. ] applies. --] (]) 02:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::Strongly agree that his name should be omitted per ]. <font face="Century Gothic">](])</font> 02:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
Omit name, obviously. ] (]) 02:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
We've had this discussion repeatedly. It would be helpful to avoid going around this question again unless there is ''something'' that would indicate a possibility for a different outcome. Until there is a major change in the BLP policy, its clear that we cover the event here, not the person. Who this person is matters very little to an encyclopedic discussion of the meme. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Is there a way to prevent auto-archiving so I don't have to keep explaining the justification to new editors, as in the section above? ] (] | ]) 04:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Well, not everyone agrees, and not everyone who disagrees is a "new user". The fact that the question keeps getting asked indicates a potential problem in and of itself. Effectively all of the sources use the name, indicating that ''they'' considered it important to the discussion. By failing to follow that lead, we are in essence engaging in POV—relying on our own opinion of what we should or should not include, rather than looking to the majority of reliable sources for the answer. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 05:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Any time we form a ] and exercise editorial control, we are expressing an opinion. When we decide which policy applies, we are expressing an opinion. To include the name would be an expression that ] trumps ], which ] specifically states it does not. Misplaced Pages is its own animal. It has its own policies. Misplaced Pages does not cave to the peer pressure of other media outlets. We follow our policies that are established and agreed upon by our editors. If other sources wish to engage in unethical activities, that is their decision. That does not mean we should blindly follow them. ] (] | ]) 05:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The issue here isn't even really ], though that is an important consideration. The most important consideration is ]. The way to resolve neutrality issues is simple—ask "What do the sources say?" What is ethical and what is not is often a subjective consideration. One would assume that professional journalists are well versed in journalistic ethics. A vast majority of these professionals came to the conclusion that including the name falls within ethical bounds. Imagine a different situation—an editor comes along and says it is "unethical" for us to state that a certain medical treatment is effective, as he believes it is not. Others share that belief. Yet, the vast majority of the scientific literature on the subject states that it indeed is. It would be POV for us to follow that opinion, even if it is widespread. We could certainly report that there is controversy, provided that it is sourced well, but to actually exclude the findings of effectiveness from the article based on such opinions would absolutely be POV. The situation here is no different. We've got a reliable source saying the situation is controversial. We can use that source. But to follow that source, to the exclusion of dozens of others, is POV. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 06:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Your argument is a ]. This issue here is ]. Again you are suggesting "because they do it, we must do it, to do otherwise is POV." That's not how policies work. Other websites do not always act ethically and do not observe the same policies as we do. Your comparision is completely inaccurate. For one, your example ''is not a ] issue''. For two, in your example we would be deliberately contradicting the sources. We aren't here. We are omitting information, not changing it. ]. ] (] | ]) 09:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::The other example would be the same—we would simply be omitting the well-sourced effectiveness information, not changing it (and in that case, someone could theoretically die if we were on the wrong side). As to omission, that can cause POV just as much as commission can. For a simple example, imagine we included only the pro-choice or pro-life viewpoints in the ] article. I think you'd find people to consider that POV relatively quickly. For a BLP issue, presume that we included only the information in the ] article about him being suspected of the bombing, while omitting that he was subsequently found to be totally innocent. Again, that omission would cause the article to be POV and inaccurate. The omission here is similar—we are allowing our opinion of what dozens of perfectly reliable sources should or should not have done affect what we include or omit from the article. That is the very definition of allowing our POV to color an article, rather than relying on sources. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 17:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Could you clarify what POV on the meme you believe is served by omitting the name? I'm at a loss to understand how this omission promotes any particular viewpoint. I see this more as a choice of descriptors; one does not need to name a BLPs sexual orientation, high school teachers or pant size to adequately discuss the encyclopedic information about the subject. We cover the meme in extended detail; the name of the person appearing in the original video is of very minimal weight in the grand scheme of things - they are neither famous nor known for anything outside of this meme. Using their name does nothing to enhance our understanding of the meme. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::The article sounds exceptionally awkward without it—continually trying to find anonymous reference terms, rather than a simple name, makes it obvious we're bending over backward to do something here. After seeing how widely the name is available, it becomes clearly that that "something" is to deliberately suppress it. When we have a name, we use a name. Further, readers of the article might absolutely want to do further research on the person rather than the meme. To do that, they'd have to know their name. As to what viewpoint is being pushed, it's being expressed right here in this RFC—"The name shouldn't have been used". The fact remains that it was, overwhelmingly, used by dozens of sources, so if someone does want to use it in the article, there shouldn't be any objection. It's well sourced, totally verifiable, relevant information that's already available to the public. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::"The name shouldn't have been used." is not a POV on the article topic, its an editing POV - very different animals. If wording is the concern, {{tl|sofixit}}. If readers wish to have more information, they have the references and external links just like any other article. Nothing about the person's name is important to understanding the video and the meme that grew from it. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::I would be happy to fix it, and could do so easily. But the way to do that isn't available, even though it's sourced and verifiable. I would absolutely disagree that the name is not important to understanding the topic—it's the name of the central figure. And, yes, readers can always follow a reference to get more information, but that's not any kind of justification for excluding material from that reference. The ideal situation is that there's never a bit of information in an article that a reader could not find by consulting an article's references. That doesn't mean we may as well remove all the article text and simply leave a reference list. As to POV, when "editing POV" starts excluding sourced material, it starts contributing to article POV, intentionally or not. As the article stands, it is quite clearly pushing a viewpoint, and that's been so clear to readers that many of them have come here to comment on it. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 19:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::Okay, let me try explaining my point from a different direction. Short of "we want to know the kids name" what encyclopedic purpose does that bit of information serve? Is the video or meme or the reaction to either changed by knowing the person's name? ] <sup>]</sup> 19:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::His name means nothing in that he is not known for anything else. If ] did it his name would be included but in this case the only notability is the video, not the person. <font face="Century Gothic">](])</font> 21:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::Well, let me try mine from a different direction too, and reverse the question. What ''good'' does it do to exclude the name? There's no privacy issue here—the information is clearly publicly available, whether you or I think it should've been made so or not. We're not proposing to say something unverifiable or controversial, so the main part of BLP certainly doesn't apply. I agree what happened to this guy was terrible, and the real best result would be that his schoolmates didn't pull their stunt and we never had this article to talk about at all. But that's just not the case, and I don't see how failing to include the name, resulting in an awkward sounding, hard to read, clearly slanted article (which most certainly ''does'' impede understanding) in any way helps that. There is also still the question of further research, which an interested reader might want to do. Excluding the name would either impede them in that (which runs counter to our core goal), as a lot of the material on the subject is searchable by the name, or they would quickly discover what it is, in which case we accomplished nothing. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 04:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::If you mean what 'good' from a moral or ethical standpoint it's easy - mentioning his name may prolong the effects of what you already agree was 'terrible' for him. QED. With respect, I think you're not bringing any new points with your multiple responses - perhaps you might put yourself in his shoes for one moment, and then ask yourself whether your determination to include what most agree is a non-essential detail has the potential to cause yet more hurt and upset to the victim here? ] (]) 07:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
(indent reset) I was actually referring to "good" in terms of actual, realistic effect, not speculative. What's done is done, in this scenario. I do not imagine that the subject here loses sleep over whether or not his name is included in another source or not, and see nothing to the contrary. I certainly hope that he's just put that part of his life behind him and moved on with it. Regardless, we cannot stuff this genie back in the bottle many years after the fact. Trying to do so may be done with the most noble of intentions, but it's a rather ] undertaking, and cannot succeed. The real service we can do is write a good article on what happened, complete with all relevant information, in the hopes that it serves as a cautionary tale to someone else who would do the same. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 07:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:Your argument becomes even weaker if you're now going to rely upon your hopes and wishes that the subject has 'moved on'. It is clear that the person had psychiatric problems as a result of this episode, and that any reasonable person might deduce that such problems might be perpetuated and compounded by the dogged determination to print the victim's name. Your 'genie in the bottle' analogy again ignores the points that have been made to you above; just because another publication prints his name doesn't mean WP has to, particularly as WP is more likely to be first port of call for anyone searching for information on the video. As for your hope that the article serves as a cautionary tale - how is the inclusion of his name going to further that 'hope'? Finally, you doidn't answer the question I posed, which in my opinion is the nub: 'perhaps you might put yourself in his shoes for one moment, and then ask yourself whether your determination to include what most agree is a non-essential detail has the potential to cause yet more hurt and upset to the victim here?' ] (]) 08:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::I don't believe it has any potential to do that. It was ''already'' made public many years ago. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
We are currently the top google result for the young man's real name. This "amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." We can't control what any of these other sources do, but that doesn't mean that we have to participate in activities which the community has found are unacceptable. (Speculation on the victim's metal state and whether or not he has 'moved on' is irrelevant and not helping the BLP issues, either, incidentally.) There really is no argument here. Per ], we must not include the victim's name. -- ] | (]) 18:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I concur with others who have stated that this article pertains specifically to the Internet meme, and thus the biographical information is relevant but not mandatory. As the individual's identity is not relevant for any reason other than the meme, knowing his name does not confer any additional understanding of the topic. And, as per ] "The ''possibility'' of harm to living subjects must be considered when exercising editorial judgment." This indicates to me that it is better to err on the side of caution, especially when the data being consider do not contribute significantly to the information content of the article. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 06:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
I believe this article does not fall into ], and therefore there is no need for a name. Just give the kid a break already. <font face="courier new"><b>> ]<small><sup style="margin-left:1.0ex;">>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-10.0ex;">>]</sub></small></b></font> 21:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I'm responding to the RfC. While this is an article about a viral video and not a person, ] applies to all biographical information regardless of the article. Given that this person is only notable for one event, his name should be omitted. If this question keeps popping up over and over again, I suggest that you add a FAQ to the talk page. It won't stop people from asking about this, but at least you'll have something to point people to. If you need an example for a FAQ, see our talk page for . ] (]) 00:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
: I agree with "A Quest For Knowledge" above. We obviously shouldn't be including the name of this private individual associated with a meme that has caused him measurable damage, but writing up a FAQ will help to break the news to the many people who keep coming here wanting to put it in. --] 05:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:He's notable for two events, both the video and the lawsuit that happened after. His name is widely reported and trying to keep it out of this article is little more than censorship hiding behind BLP. BLP doesn't apply to well sourced info.--] (]) 08:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::The lawsuit is only notable because the meme is notable. Thus we should only include information about the lawsuit as it applies to the meme. And ] applies to all material, regardless of how well it is sourced. ] (] | ]) 12:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:: The statement that "BLP doesn't apply to well sourced info" is simply false. The biographies of living persons policy applies to ''every single statement about a living person'' on any part of Misplaced Pages, whether sourced or not. --] 13:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Except the argument being made is weak. The claim is that the privacy of names section covers his name but it does not. The examples given are about family members of notable people, or something like that. That is not the case here. He is quite notable in that his name is reported in hundreds of reliable sources in connection with this video over a period of several years. If you want to claim that the lawsuit is part of the same event, which happened much later, you could make the same claim about any famous person. Any actor only gets the parts and coverage because of the great job they did the first time around that made them famous. This isn't even remotely a case for privacy of names. If we were talking about his siblings names or parents names, there might be a point.--] (]) 04:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::BLP is the policy being cited, not the Privacy of Names section mentioned above. I think you'll see some other, very relevant material when reading the policy in its entirety. e.g. |
|
|
::::*''"Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy..... The possibility of harm to living subjects must be considered when exercising editorial judgment"''; |
|
|
::::*''"Presumption of Privacy- Misplaced Pages articles about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so.... 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....This is of profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Misplaced Pages editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization."'' |
|
|
::::There's more too, which you find yourself. --] (]) 04:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I've deleted the RFC. I think we've formed a solid consensus. Arguments for inclusion of the name seem to either , , or . Hopefully the FAQ on the top of the page and the non-archiving of this discussion will be enough to prevent this dispute from being re-opened in the future. Thanks to everyone who participated. ] (] | ]) 09:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:AzureFury, kindly do not characterize my arguments (or those of others) in a patronizing or dismissive manner. You've every right to disagree, but you've no right to do that. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 09:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:And now that I've noticed, I'd like the RFC to run for the full term. Most of who's showed up already are the "usual suspects" here, let's let some other people look at it. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::Seraphim, what do you think is going to change? There is a solid majority of editors here that have opposed inclusion of the name. This RFC has been open for a week. We've run every argument to its conclusion, and even gone through some extra arguments for good measure. No progress is being made towards inclusion. Further, this is (at least) the second RFC you've been involved in on this page. You know how this is going to play out. Are you hoping that enough anons ignorant of wiki policy will respond to this RFC to change the proportion of the vote? Perhaps you can find editors who are willing to ignore policy too. Let's stop wasting everyone's time eh? ]. ] (] | ]) 18:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I think we may get some additional views on the matter (someone else just came in favoring inclusion as well, as you might note.) There's always the possibility that ], and you're not just definitively correct here. I also oppose the addition of any "FAQ" that doesn't include the counterarguments as well, as it may seem to be a "Shut up, we'll never change this", even if that's not its intent. It may very well be that it doesn't get done this time around either, but if there's one thing I've learned around here, it's that what needs to happen eventually does. It just takes time. If you're as right as you think you are, what harm could be done by letting it run long enough to get some genuinely new eyes on the situation? This is a repeat performance for most of us here, not just myself. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::An FAQ prevents us from having to go through these same arguments again. Policy is clear on the matter. Until policy changes, consensus on this page will not change. I did note the other editors who came in favoring inclusion, that's who I was referring to when I said, "...editors who are willing to ignore policy..." ] (] | ]) 18:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::(edit conflict) I would also support continuing the RFC. I don't think it is the greatest idea for the initiator to declare it closed, procedure-wise. However, I'll point out that actually, based on an analysis of the page statistics, fully 50% of the contributors to this RFC (or more if you count me) are new editors to this topic. So, not this hasn't been "a repeat performance for most of us". --] (]) 18:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I thought that 12 against inclusion and 3 for inclusion was enough to interpolate the results of a continued RFC. It seems to me that discussion has pretty much broken down and we're just tallying up more votes. If someone feels strongly that more needs to be said here, feel free to repost the RFC. ] (] | ]) 18:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Amazingly enough, adopting an "I'm right, you're wrong, we're done" mentality tends to lead to a discussion breakdown. ''You believe'', as may others here do, that existing policy precludes use of the name. ''I believe'', as many others also have, that it does not. When we disagree, we talk, we don't just say "Well you're wrong, so I'll declare the discussion over and slap a header on the page to discourage people from ever discussing it again." I'd also say it's difficult at best to interpret numbers from a conversation with the use of such attitudes, as it often discourages those on the opposing side from participating in it at all due to the high likelihood of being subjected to the same treatment. That's why we don't consider things to be votes. You've every right to disagree, as do I. You do not have the right to be snide, dismissive, or adopt a "high horse" position, as all of those are ], and more importantly, all inevitably lead to a poor quality discussion that doesn't resolve anything. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 19:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Article full protected for a week == |
|
|
|
|
|
Due to the edit warring, I am fully protecting the article for one week. |
|
|
|
|
|
I am not going to take any BLP violation or ] or ] related enforcement actions at this time. I would like to request that, when the full protect ends, nobody launch into a new round of fighting over it. THAT, will lead to blocks. |
|
|
|
|
|
The RFC above is fine. Edit warring over BLP issues, especially long settled ones, is not OK. ] (]) 00:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Protection template == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{tl|editprotected}} |
|
|
Please replace the protetion template <code><nowiki>{{pp-semi-indef|small=yes|expiry=May 06, 2009}}</nowiki></code> with something like <code><nowiki>{{Pp-protected|small=yes}}</nowiki></code>. Thank you, ] (]) 13:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:{{done}} Not really a big deal though, is it? :) ≈ ] ] ] 03:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: No, but it helps keeping ] empty. So thank you. And you learned to be more carefull next time. Also a gain. ] (]) 16:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
==Draft FAQ== |
|
|
As a result of a suggestion by ] in the RFC above, I've written a draft FAQ which is transcluded to the top of this talk page. For the page itself, see ]. --] 05:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== His name comes up in search engines, why nothing can be done == |
|
|
|
|
|
Because the name is literally all over the internet approximately 29,000 times, tied to the phrase Star Wars Kid. There is absolutely nothing that can be done to stop it coming up on this article in searches because of Misplaced Pages's own SEO, unless you exclude this article from SEA with no indexing or robots.txt. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
: Please feel free to nominate the article for deletion (which would be futile, I have no doubt). Incidentally what is "SEA"? I presume you do not mean "]", an expanse of salty water? I can just about guess that, by SEO, you mean "Search engine optimization", but please bear in mind that this is still the ] encyclopedia, not the encyclopedia for spouting random bits of alphabet. --] 22:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::Well, you are pointlessly rude and belligerent, no? It was a typo of SEO. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
::: Sorry if it sounds rude, but my complaint isn't pointless. It's that if you use English instead of odd bits of alphabet cobbled together it's more likely that you will be understood. --] 14:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== If we won't name him == |
|
|
|
|
|
We should remove all the links to external sites that name him. Otherwise, it's shallow hypocrisy to simply exclude his name. We're doing it half-assed, if we're going to do it. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
: See ] Q2. Yes, all compromise lays one open to the charge of hypocrisy. This is why people over the age of 15 can seldom make a credible charge of hypocrisy. Accommodating conflicting principles to arrive at an acceptable end result is very much what we do here. --] 14:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::Is it even possible for you to answer a question without a backhanded insult? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
::: Sorry, I agree that the reference to adolescence was rude. --] 14:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== proposed change == |
|
|
|
|
|
I propose changing |
|
|
:" It was taped it over a portion of a basketball game..." |
|
|
to |
|
|
:" It was taped over a portion of a basketball game..." |
|
|
for grammar reasons. Any objections? ] (]) 14:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Straightforward. I've taken the liberty of adding an {{tlx|editprotected}} tag so an administrator may see the proposal and perform this uncontroversial edit. --] 14:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I've taken care of this uncontroversial edit. Thank you, ].--] (]) 15:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Notable for one event?== |
|
== confusion about my edit? == |
|
If this person is truly only notable for one event, ], then why isn't this article '''DELETED'''? ] (]) 19:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:Because it's not, strictly speaking, a biographical article. When a person is notable for one event, we're to create an article on the event, or in this case, the meme. -- ] | (]) 19:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{admin|Masem}} saying, "While he has revealed himself, the topic is about the meme more than the person". I don't understand the edit summary. All I did was remove the empty {{tl|infobox film}} parameters, remove the "filmed" date from the infobox (as that's not that parameter's purpose), and change Raza's infobox title from director (which is probably technically true, but not the intent of labeling a director) to starring, which is truly what he did. Oh, I also implemented {{tl|CAD}}, which is probably neither here nor there for what Masem meant. — '''] | ] |''' 18:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC) |
|
:: I really could care less if this article was deleted. That said, however, I do think it is kind of silly the arguments being made above regarding the inclusion/exclusion of his real name. On both sides. ] (]) 19:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
