Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:40, 6 June 2008

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 Misplaced Pages'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

Misplaced Pages articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Misplaced Pages 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". Misplaced Pages 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

Misplaced Pages articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects. Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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, as court records show him/her being out of the country." 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", 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 . 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:

Template:AmbiguousBio

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  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 _{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 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."  

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 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 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 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)

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 Misplaced Pages. To my knowledge, it should be regarded like Misplaced Pages: not a valid source for anything in Misplaced Pages. 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: , , , . 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 "Misplaced Pages"), 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:

--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 Misplaced Pages. 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 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 Misplaced Pages talk:Biographies of living persons (and archives). Thank you. --NYScholar 00:11, 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 00:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Following your suggestion above, I have posted a message about these concerns in Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability#Re: WP:BLP#Reliable sources (talk page of WP:V); Misplaced Pages talk:No original research#Re: WP:BLP#Reliable sources (talk page of WP:NOR), and Misplaced Pages talk:Neutral point of view#Re: WP:BLP#Reliable sources (talk page of Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

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)

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)