Revision as of 11:36, 21 September 2007 editYukichigai (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers4,182 edits →Misplaced Pages is not censored!!: Stop dicking with other editors' comments guys← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:39, 21 September 2007 edit undoPolarscribe (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers22,997 edits replace talk page post.Next edit → | ||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 532: | Line 532: | ||
== Misplaced Pages is not censored!! == | == Misplaced Pages is not censored!! == | ||
Don't remove his name |
Don't remove his name. ] 20:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
Clinton probably wishes his article doesn't talk about him and Monica Lewinsky but that doesn't we omit that either. Nixon probably wants his article to reflect how he was a hero who commanded a heroic army in Vietnam but we don't add that either. ] 20:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
: Hello, BlueLotas. First, I've removed three words from your comment about Clinton and Lewinsky as inappropriate per ]. Second, we as editors may decide when or when not to include something - That is not "censorship", it is ]. Third, your arguments to include information in this article based on the fact that we do not omit information from other articles is a ] and a ]. Focus on this article and the merits of the information you included, not on other articles. Fourth, your edits are not "minor", so please do not mark them as minor. Thank you, ] 21:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC) | : Hello, BlueLotas. First, I've removed three words from your comment about Clinton and Lewinsky as inappropriate per ]. Second, we as editors may decide when or when not to include something - That is not "censorship", it is ]. Third, your arguments to include information in this article based on the fact that we do not omit information from other articles is a ] and a ]. Focus on this article and the merits of the information you included, not on other articles. Fourth, your edits are not "minor", so please do not mark them as minor. Thank you, ] 21:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
Line 540: | Line 539: | ||
* I would remind people that our legal counsel is now ], so violating ] in the context of debate on talk pages is now self-referential as well as unbelievably lame. Good grief. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 07:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC) | * I would remind people that our legal counsel is now ], so violating ] in the context of debate on talk pages is now self-referential as well as unbelievably lame. Good grief. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 07:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
:: |
::FCYTravis and Iamunknown, what part of "]" do you not understand? BlueLotas is making a comparison, and regardless of how much you like the comparison it is not acceptable to remove it. FCYTravis, you in particular should know better, particularly because this kind of craptastic behavior can get you banned. Leave the comments alone. -- ] ('''<sub><font color="blue">]</font></sub> <small><font color="red">]</font></small> <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup>''') 11:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
:::If removing arguably-libelous comparisons to Nazis will get me banned, then Misplaced Pages is not worth using and supporting. ] 18:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:39, 21 September 2007
Biography Start‑class | ||||||||||
|
Internet culture Start‑class | |||||||||||||||||
|
The logic for keeping this article?
Why is it that Misplaced Pages keeps the entry of this guy, but deletes the articles of other famous people like Brian Peppers which are in the same position of being famous due to an embarassing situation? Either keep all of them and destroy their lives by publishing everything about them, or delete them all, but don't be picky. Guest Account 11:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- what is the logic of Misplaced Pages? There ain't none. users think of Misplaced Pages as an encyclopedia, yet by the true sense of the word it isn't. Misplaced Pages can have a section devoted to the Playboy Playmates with the largests breasts -- but try to create a page with more culturally significant content and see how long it stays up. The issue is not the content, the issue is that Misplaced Pages is flawed beyond reason.
- The problem here is not that a topic is or is not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia, the problem is a fundamental structural flaw in Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages presents information by consensus. Enough people stand behind (and protect) the words on a particular page and that page is allowed to stay. Those who want to edit/amend/delete are out of luck if sufficient numbers of those supports work to keep things the way they want it. An encyclopedia is published and the editor and/or publisher stand behind the final product. If information is inaccurate or erroneous or an outright fabrication, there is somebody who has to assume responsibility. With Misplaced Pages time and again we can see information is erroneous, or misleading, or poorly worded, or an outright lie but if sufficient numbers of people stand behind the page –then it remains. Misplaced Pages has very clear rules regarding how the system operates, and time and again those rules are sidestepped, disregarded, or bent. The query is valid; If Star Wars Kid is worthy of a Misplaced Pages entry, then why not a Misplaced Pages entry for Brian Peppers? However, a more pertinent query might be; what number of Brian Peppers Entry supporters would be required to outmuscle those who oppose the same page? Misplaced Pages is not about fact – Misplaced Pages is about consensus. 202.79.62.18 02:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- While I understand the general concern over "rule by consensus", I think one of the reasons wikipedia becomes its own meme is because it does allow for articles such as this... based on notability and cultural influence. It's not trying to be an Encarta clone, nor should it. Articles like this deserve a place on an encyclopedic site, so long as they are NPOV, tasteful, and information that people seek to know. This topic and that of Dog poop girl is also one of socio-legal significance, because they will likely set precedence with privacy laws, which are very slowly evolving to catch up with modern technology. In the end, the wiki is a place for users, by users, and the average reader knows this. Go ahead and nominate it again for deletion, I'm sure it will survive again. --64.253.48.73 06:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's also a pretty big cultural phenomenon.66.156.29.72 21:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- I believe this article's subject has a complete lack of notability, per the Misplaced Pages:Notability (people) guidelines. The fact that pop culture happened to pick up on a video clip of a person who apparently was documented behaving inappropriately does not make the person nor the clip rise to the level of notability. I support the proposal to delete this article. VisitorTalk 05:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Wrong notability guideline. This is primarily about the video. — TKD::Talk 05:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Why would the video be notable? And can you please point out to me the guidelines that explain why video of a trivial event can itself be notable? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by VisitorTalk (talk • contribs) 07:57, August 23, 2007 (UTC).
- The release of the video started an Internet phenomenon (as well as controversy and a lawsuit); this has been non-trivially documented in multiple sources. See WP:WEB as well as the general WP:N guidelines. — TKD::Talk 13:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, indeed. Under WP:N, his name is notable, and suppressing it is a violation of Misplaced Pages policy. dcandeto 22:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Again, omitting non-relevant information is not censorship. The article is not improved by adding his name, as it tells us absolutely nothing about the phenomenon. In the balance of privacy required by the biographies of living persons policy, we're leaving it out. If you think the article should be deleted because of this... hey, awesome, let's delete it. That would be just fine. FCYTravis 23:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- The name is relevant, though, so it's censorship. Going with your line of thought though, you concur that we should delete Gary Brolsma's name from Numa Numa, right? The video is still an Internet phenomenon without knowing who the funny dancing guy is. dcandeto 23:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- How is the name relevant? You keep baldly asserting that it is, when you have introduced no evidence to support your assertion. As for Mr. Brolsma, his case is entirely different and non-analogous, as demonstrated by the article at Gary Brolsma. Mr. Brolsma has intentionally placed himself back in the public eye, doing interviews and forming a band to capitalize on the phenomenon. The subject of Star Wars kid has done none of those things. If at some point in the future he does intentionally place himself in the public spotlight in an attempt to similarly take advantage of his fame, then this decision can and should be reconsidered at that time. But until then, this young man is a private citizen who does not want the attention and in the absence of any compelling reason to the contrary, we will respect his privacy. FCYTravis 06:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- The name is relevant, though, so it's censorship. Going with your line of thought though, you concur that we should delete Gary Brolsma's name from Numa Numa, right? The video is still an Internet phenomenon without knowing who the funny dancing guy is. dcandeto 23:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Again, omitting non-relevant information is not censorship. The article is not improved by adding his name, as it tells us absolutely nothing about the phenomenon. In the balance of privacy required by the biographies of living persons policy, we're leaving it out. If you think the article should be deleted because of this... hey, awesome, let's delete it. That would be just fine. FCYTravis 23:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, indeed. Under WP:N, his name is notable, and suppressing it is a violation of Misplaced Pages policy. dcandeto 22:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- If the article is actually about the video and the controversy surrounding the video, then I'd like to see the title of the article changed to reflect that: "'Star Wars kid' video". This would clarify that the article is not about the kid, but about the video. This change in title would also make clear that the only biographical material about the kid which is relevant is that which is needed to understand the widespread coverage of the video, controversy, and lawsuit. VisitorTalk 14:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- Philosophically, I don't have a problem with clarifying the distinction as much as possible, but I'm not sure that our naming conventions would agree with the extra verbiage. The very first sentence states that the subject is an "Internet phenomenon". — TKD::Talk 01:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Removed unsourced, libellous section of personal opinions about the subject rather than the article
I deleted an unsourced, potentially libelous section because "Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous." (In addition, the section was poorly written: "the kids problem" (sic), "He should be greatful!" (sic), "why could he take it like the Numa Numa kid?" when couldn't was the appropriate word for this occasion, swearing, and blame for the victim of unintended public exposure to ridicule ("It was his fault he left the tape behind...his fat ass...") The responses were personal opinions about third parties: "you're probably the only person in the world...," "I don't think he IS the only youth today who would pick...," "...would definitely make ME feel a whole lot better." None of this helps to improve the article. VisitorTalk 14:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Full name legalities
Is it legal to give the names of underaged kids who are being sued?
- I am not a lawyer, nor does Misplaced Pages give legal advice. However, as this is a civil matter (and not a criminal matter) I believe that the names are public record. →Raul654 16:36, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
- I read that his parents requested his last name to be kept confidential in future reproductions. Therefore, I think it would be wise if we deleted the "Raza" part of his name and renamed the article simply "Ghyslain"; not in the fear that Wiki'll be sued otherwise, just out of courtesy to the poor kid. Kakashi-sensei 03:31, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
- Uhhh, no. They can request all they want, but he's already been very prominently featured in a USA today story, as well as being mentioned in many, many places on the web. Our mission is to inform, and their request is contray to that mission. →Raul654 03:38, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Those don't count because they were written before his parents requested his name not be reproduced. You'll notice that and no longer display his last name. Kakashi-sensei 04:08, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
- You miss the point - his parents want to keep people in ignorance, and our job is countering ignorance. Their request fundementally goes against our mission. →Raul654 04:14, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
- The request by Ghyslain's parents has absolutely nothing to do with "keeping people in ignorance." They're asking to keep his last name confidential because the kid went to a mental institution over the incident. If he were your son or if you were the kid himself, you'd feel the same way. This isn't about "going against our mission." This is about protecting an individual's legal and ethical right to privacy and confidentiality. Kakashi-sensei 18:54, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
- As recently as March 3 2005, Montreal's La Presse newspaper reprinted a New York Times article (translated into French) that mentions Ghyslain Raza by name . His name is public, it was widely reported back in 2003 in local Quebec media and international media. To the best of my knowledge, there is no court order in effect in Canada to keep his name secret, and it's a couple of years too late for that by now anyway. In any case his parents have filed a civil suit in any case, I don't think there's any anonymity granted in civil suits (as opposed to criminal cases), no? -- Curps 00:12, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
- The request by Ghyslain's parents has absolutely nothing to do with "keeping people in ignorance." They're asking to keep his last name confidential because the kid went to a mental institution over the incident. If he were your son or if you were the kid himself, you'd feel the same way. This isn't about "going against our mission." This is about protecting an individual's legal and ethical right to privacy and confidentiality. Kakashi-sensei 18:54, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
- You miss the point - his parents want to keep people in ignorance, and our job is countering ignorance. Their request fundementally goes against our mission. →Raul654 04:14, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Those don't count because they were written before his parents requested his name not be reproduced. You'll notice that and no longer display his last name. Kakashi-sensei 04:08, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
- Uhhh, no. They can request all they want, but he's already been very prominently featured in a USA today story, as well as being mentioned in many, many places on the web. Our mission is to inform, and their request is contray to that mission. →Raul654 03:38, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
- I read that his parents requested his last name to be kept confidential in future reproductions. Therefore, I think it would be wise if we deleted the "Raza" part of his name and renamed the article simply "Ghyslain"; not in the fear that Wiki'll be sued otherwise, just out of courtesy to the poor kid. Kakashi-sensei 03:31, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Surely Misplaced Pages should be more interested in the collation of factual information rather than being 'nice' to people who would rather not be famous by removing some personal details from their entries. What next, nominating pages about sex offenders for deletion because they bring them worldwide humiliation?143.252.80.100 09:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. Is there a specific legal or site-ordained policy against revealing a name in this case? If not, I recommend the name of Ghyslain Raza be added to this article. The main source cited by this article (a story by the Globe and Mail) includes the name, so to omit it here is only to obscure the subject of this relevant article. --Nick Douglas 21:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- "What next, nominating pages about sex offenders for deletion because they bring them worldwide humiliation?"
- Was that an innuendo on the disabled Brian Peppers? It's not sure if he groped a nurse by mistake or if it he indeed touched a girl inappropriately. So maybe this (and the vandalism) are the reasons the article about him as a sex offender was deleted. 83.76.194.60 18:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Argument to Rename Article
Alright, I concede. I've given up on this argument (I never had much of an argument anyway, did I?) in favor of a small suggestion. While this may sound like a covert plan to get my way on the last issue, I assure you it's not. My suggestion is perhaps that the article be named "Star Wars Kid," since most people who are familiar with the incident would know Ghyslain better by this name. The article would, of course, still contain Ghyslain's full legal name, but I simply thought that people would be more likely to type "Star Wars Kid" into the search bar than they would "Ghyslain Raza" (most of the people I know who are familiar with the case can't even spell "Ghyslain Raza"). Again, just a suggestion. Kakashi-sensei 20:04, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
- That probably makes sense, under the Misplaced Pages:Use common names policy. -- Curps 04:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed then? Kakashi-sensei 13:40, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
- This makes sense. There are currently 81,200 Google results for "Star Wars Kid" and only 2,650 results for "Ghyslain Raza." Star Wars Kid should be the primary entry, and Ghyslain Raza should redirect to it. --4.38.40.52 02:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I agree also, change it to Star Wars kid Themindset 03:56, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- There you go, I changed it. Themindset 04:02, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I agree also, change it to Star Wars kid Themindset 03:56, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- This makes sense. There are currently 81,200 Google results for "Star Wars Kid" and only 2,650 results for "Ghyslain Raza." Star Wars Kid should be the primary entry, and Ghyslain Raza should redirect to it. --4.38.40.52 02:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed then? Kakashi-sensei 13:40, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Irrelevant
This issue is rather moot, especially considering that millions of people have already seen the videos and know full well who this kid is. Removing his last name from this entry isn't going to make any difference considering the results delivered by a Google search merely using his first name are all in reference to Raza as the one and only SWK. So drop it already. SWK for life! --260 16:04, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Image
The image was deleted as a copyvio, I was agreed that fair use was not applicable. Here is the discussion from WP:CP.--nixie 12:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
- Image:Star_Wars_Kid.jpg Screen shots from a school video posted on the internet as a prank against the fat kid in the video - no source cited and no licence given. A curate's egg 14:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
- Accepted fair use. See Template:Screenshot. Postdlf 16:08, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
- THIS IS NOT CORRECT - THE VIDEO WAS TAKEN BY THE FAT KID AND USED WITHOUT HIS PERMISSION BY HIS SCHOOL MATES - HIS PARENTS THEN SUED THEM - FAIRUSE - I DON'T THINK SO A curate's egg 07:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
- I see someone has now removed the VIO tag calling it "bogus". Can someone determine whether this is a vio picture or not - ok it is a screenshot - but the video was posted on the internet as a prank and seemingly without permission - this would seem to be mean it is a copyvio as is everthing that flows from it. A curate's egg 09:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
- Under US law, a photograph focused on and featuring an identifiable person cannot be published without that person's permission. Exceptions exist for public figures and celebrities, but it would be stretching a point to say that the Star Wars kid was a celebrity, especially since his only claim to fame resulted from a violation of his rights associated with this material. Hence I would agree it should be deleted. Dragons flight 03:59, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
- This armchair lawyering is, as usual, fucking ridonkulous. In a court of law, exactly how does one define a "celebrity"? Are you a celebrity if you are a hidden character in a top-selling console video game, like Tony Hawk's Underground 2? What if reference is made to you in a television series, such as Veronica Mars? Or wait, what if your infamous video is played on a huge-ass Jumbotron screen at SBC Park during a San Francisco Giants game, are you a celebrity then? If this image is indeed a "copyvio", then mark it for deletion— I'll be right behind you to contest it is not. Like it or not, this kid is a celebrity. —RaD Man (talk) 20:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
- Radman, pusuant to our dispute when you kept reverting pics so that your friend could appear in over 20 wikipedia articles that didn't relate to him... I must say you are a rather huge hypocrit. I invite everyone here to go read Radman's statements on my talk page to see how important copyvio is to him (or, at least, when he's a proxy-puppet for his buddy). Themindset 02:04, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- Without resorting to personal attacks, I invite people to go read them too. That argument was whether to allow a substandard "promo photo" which was being uploaded by you, or a higher quality, public domain image uploaded by User:Alkivar. This argument is whether or not a copyvio is taking place, and I submit that one is not, which is why the image hasn't been deleted through the Misplaced Pages image deletion process. Someone, please prove me wrong by submitting this to IfD. —RaD Man (talk) 03:23, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- I've uploaded a new image here before coming across this discussion, I'll wait to see what the final verdict is before actually editing the article -- MacAddct1984 06:20, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
- I am not a lawyer, but Image:star_wars_kid.png meets my own interpretation of fair use. Can someone please cite the link to the original WP:IFD discussion? Hall Monitor 17:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
- The only archive of it I can find exists here: here -- MacAddct1984 22:22, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
- THIS IS NOT CORRECT - THE VIDEO WAS TAKEN BY THE FAT KID AND USED WITHOUT HIS PERMISSION BY HIS SCHOOL MATES - HIS PARENTS THEN SUED THEM - FAIRUSE - I DON'T THINK SO A curate's egg 07:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
- Accepted fair use. See Template:Screenshot. Postdlf 16:08, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Comment NNDB has a picture of this kid on their site here. 71.65.54.92 05:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- I added this photo to the article, though it may have been a careless mistake. Edit at will. —Joshfist 20:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
What was the result of the legal preceedings?
The article doesn't make mention of it.--Micro506 16:05, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- There doesn't seem to any recent (post-2003) news at all about this on the Internet. -- Curps 19:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
- How ironic... Serendipodous 16:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Is he all right?
I didn't know the poor kid ended up in a mental institution over this, but then, I shouldn't have been surprised. What happened to him really is unfair, and an abject lesson in the dangers of our goldfish-bowl society (and a reminder of just how cruel and venal kids can be- I had no idea that they had actually broken into his locker. That's vile). I am a bit troubled by this article though; are we not contributing to this kid's undeserved noteriety?Serendipodous 17:15, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Sept 8 FJC:::Poor kid? If he was upset over this to the point it put him in a mental institution, then he had big problems before the video ever appeared online. What's the "cruel prank?" A video of him goofing around was made public. How is that cruel?
Misplaced Pages is not censored for the protection of minors, and to add to that, Misplaced Pages is not here to protect people's feelings. It's an encyclopedia, not a kindergarden project. Themindset 22:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
- I don't know if the article is going to do any harm - the damage is done. If anything its an example of how cruel some people are and a reminder of it. But I must say, what happened to him was terrible. What absolute bastards. Forever young 13:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I would think that instead of contributing to his pain, this article does a fairly good job of fleshing out the fact that this is a real person who was the victim of a very cruel long-term prank. If anything it should help to educate people, and prevent them from sharing the video and laughing at his expense. I am curious, though, about the outcome of the lawsuit? I searched a little bit for the outcome, and couldn't find anything other than announcements that it was filed.Starfoxy 03:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
What the heck's the guy's problem, anyway? I would love to have a video seen by millions of people, even if I was somewhat ungraceful in it. Besides, the video's been altered many times to add the lightsaber and wooshing effects, and I would think a true Star Wars fan would think that's pretty freakin' cool. I know I would.
In any event, if he didn't want the video to appear on the Internet, he shouldn't have left it in a studio for months-- or heck, even made the video at all. ekedolphin 18:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
"In any event, if he didn't want the video to appear on the Internet, he shouldn't have left it in a studio for months-- or heck, even made the video at all" -Eh? Are you seriously suggesting that if you create any private material, you should not be surprised if someone puts it on the internet? So if I broke into your house and stole your videos of your vacation and put it on the internet, you'd just shrug your shoulders and say fair game? Ridiculous. Magic Pickle 21:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Links to the videos
Obviously, the video was a classic example of cyberbullying. By providing links to websites containing the original (or modified) videos, we are contributing to the problem. Thus, I believe that it would be prudent to remove such links. Brent Woods 23:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages's intent is to inform, even if that information might hurt somebody. This is an article about an internet phenomenan. It would be absurd for it not to have a link to its subject. We give link to hate sites like Godhatesfags.com, a KKK site, some neo-Nazi sites, etc., and they are far more damaging. -LtNOWIS 04:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree that we can (and should) discuss the internet phenomenon itself and the history of the incident; the positive effect is that it would raise awareness on the whole issue of cyberbullying. However, linking to the video itself would prolong the bullying problem. By the same token, we could have articles about racism that give the facts and history behind racist groups such as KKK (maintaining NPOV), but we should not link to sites that actively promote racism as this defeats the purpose of informing. Brent Woods 05:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
- Since when is Misplaced Pages's final purpose to stop racism? -LtNOWIS 06:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- It's not, and nor is it Misplaced Pages's purpose to promote it. All I'm saying is that we should give the facts on these issues (NPOV), but not link to sites that give opinions or promote such activity. Seasons Greetings. Brent Woods 18:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
- Since when is Misplaced Pages's final purpose to stop racism? -LtNOWIS 06:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree that we can (and should) discuss the internet phenomenon itself and the history of the incident; the positive effect is that it would raise awareness on the whole issue of cyberbullying. However, linking to the video itself would prolong the bullying problem. By the same token, we could have articles about racism that give the facts and history behind racist groups such as KKK (maintaining NPOV), but we should not link to sites that actively promote racism as this defeats the purpose of informing. Brent Woods 05:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
The Truth?
When you take a closer look at this case, you'll see that it's still not very clear what really happened. Look at the last seconds of the original Star Wars Kid video for example. There's a very short fragment of a basketball match. When you look even closer before that, you'll notice that Ghyslain runs to the camera, but does not switch it of. As if someone used the tape to film the basketbal match AFTER Ghyslain filmed himself.
Another thing: the file wasn't uploaded to Kazaa. You don't upload something to a p2p network, you share it. And the claim that it was uploaded/shared at April 19, 2003 is questionable too, because it is difficult to check this. Above that, the original(?) video states as Copyright '2003-04-14'. That's April 14.
The video above seem to have the original content, but does it also has the original name? I've heard that it was originally named Jackass_starwars_funny.wmv by the kids. When you think about it, that sounds more logical when you share something at a p2p network and you want it to be found. 'jackass', 'starwars' and 'funny' are all common search terms.
Furthermore, I don't think the file had been downloaded thousands, or even millions of times within a few weeks as often stated. That's as good as impossible. The web is big, but not as big that if you drop a videofile at Kazaa, it immediatly draws the attention of hundreds of users per week. The video was eventually downloaded thousands of times when sites began to host the clip and it's 'remixes' and when it got attention from the media all over the world.
Face 20:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- I doubt very much that kids from Trois-Rivières, Quebec would have given the file an English name... I imagine that came later. 69.156.104.183 05:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- I'm Dutch, but I'm not typing Dutch here. After all, this is an international site where everybody speaks English. And Kazaa is an international filesharing program, where English is just the standard language.
Ofcourse, both your and my claim could be true. Another reason why this story could use a little clarification. Many sources on this page are French, and they, among other sources ofcourse, may contain more details about this case (see my above post). So if there's someone around here who can read French, has the time to read this sources exstensively and would like to help, I would be very pleased with that ;-).
Face 20:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- I'm Dutch, but I'm not typing Dutch here. After all, this is an international site where everybody speaks English. And Kazaa is an international filesharing program, where English is just the standard language.
Quebec law
Isn't there something in Quebec law stating that individuals have an inviolable right to control the use of their own image, or something like that? DS 23:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed, you're thinking of the case Aubry v. Éditions Vice-Versa Inc. But Misplaced Pages isn't hosted in Quebec, so there's not a lot they can do. 69.156.104.183 05:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- Granted. But I'd think that was relevant to the lawsuit, yes? DS 15:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- There's a law stating that the creator of a video owns that video, and if it is stolen from the creator, he still holds copyright. Hence, why we can't use a frame of it as fair use either. Baiter 05:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Even if the video is made with a school camera on a tape that's not yours?
- And when exactly did he register a copyright in the USA? Liu Bei 13:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- In the US, a copyright is automatic, and does not need to be registered. From the wikipedia article on copyright "In the United States, copyright has relatively recently been made automatic (in the style of the Berne Convention), which has had the effect of making it appear to be more like a property right. Thus, as with property, a copyright need not be granted or obtained through official registration with any Government Office. Once an idea has been reduced to tangible form, for example by securing it in a fixed medium (such as a drawing, sheet music, photograph, a videotape or a letter), the copyright holder is entitled to enforce his or her exclusive rights."
- oops, forgot to sign that Baiter 21:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- A screenshot would be fair use under US copyright law, right? It isn't really any different than a screenshot from a movie. 171.71.37.29 21:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- In the US, a copyright is automatic, and does not need to be registered. From the wikipedia article on copyright "In the United States, copyright has relatively recently been made automatic (in the style of the Berne Convention), which has had the effect of making it appear to be more like a property right. Thus, as with property, a copyright need not be granted or obtained through official registration with any Government Office. Once an idea has been reduced to tangible form, for example by securing it in a fixed medium (such as a drawing, sheet music, photograph, a videotape or a letter), the copyright holder is entitled to enforce his or her exclusive rights."
- We may generally use a screenshot in accordance with fair use and our non-free content criteria. But the privacy concerns here are to be noted as well, and are overriding in this case. — TKD::Talk 21:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps a screenshot where his face isn't visible would be acceptable. 69.12.143.197 16:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- We may generally use a screenshot in accordance with fair use and our non-free content criteria. But the privacy concerns here are to be noted as well, and are overriding in this case. — TKD::Talk 21:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Latest news
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060407.wxstarwars07/BNStory/National/home --Sonjaaa 16:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- Ah-hah-hah! That wacky Ghyslain... may the eyes of the media be on him always. -- Bobak 22:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Cyber bullying?
I think if the assertion of "cyber-bullying" is going to be made, that the article had better defend it with sources, rather than make an empty assertion. It seems very POV to me. I was not aware that the majority of people who'd ever heard about this video on the Net thought anything bad about it or him. Rather, quite the opposite. Compare Ghyslain's story to Mahir Cagri, who later went on a US concert tour. The question remains why would Ghyslain tape himself and then leave the tape behind if he didn't think he was any good. Here's a tip, if you don't want people to see you, don't record yourself! And if you do, keep the tape! - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 17:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
-As I said earlier, to imply that personal creations are somehow fair game for others to steal, then we have created a rather strange society. So presumably if you don't want people to read your innermost thoughts, don't write a diary, either. As for cyber-bullying, I think most people who watch the vid are laughing at him, not with him. Mahir is somewhat different, because he's an example of someone picked out for being obscure and eccentric, not for looking silly alone, like SWK. The kid left his tape in a studio - ever thought that he made a silly mistake and simply forgot about it? It's a bit of a leap to suggest he left it there deliberately. If he wanted it on the net he could have put it there himself. Magic Pickle 21:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- "As for cyber-bullying, I think most people who watch the vid are laughing at him, not with him." No, we're laughing with him because we don't assume he was seriously trying to show off his lightsaber skills. When people see the video the assumption is that the kid was goofing around. Most don't think he had serious aspirations as a Jedi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.218.101 (talk) 15:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
notability policy for memes proposed
Please help build policy at: Misplaced Pages:Notability (memes). Thank you, --Urthogie 15:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Deleted personal opinion section about the level of humor of the video
"Almost made me pee my pants" and "made me laugh the most" are not helpful comments to improve the quality of an encyclopedia article. VisitorTalk 15:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
EVERYONE READ: the person in question was NOT doing a Star Wars Imitation
I have had enough with everyone saying that this kid is the "Star Wars Kid".
When, in FACT, he is not imitating Darth Maul.
He is doing an Exhibition Kata from the Sega Dreamcast game "Soul Calibur", with the character "Kilik".
This is not an opinion, this is cold hard fact.
For anyone who has the game, unlock the Exhibition Kata for Kilik, and you will see that the kid was trying to do that.
Numerous times thorought the video this kid held onto one of the ends of his stick. If this were Star Wars, he would have lost his hand because you CAN'T TOUCH THE LIGHTSABER'S LIGHT.
In addition, he did Kilik stances in the video, as well as his DOWN + A+B Stick swinging from side to side.
In addition moreso, he placed one end on the floor to prop it in one of his stances, which you cannot do with a Lightsaber.
Please, for the love of god, stop spreading the lie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DARK ANDY (talk • contribs)
O MY GOSH!!!! This changes everything!!!!
- Wrong, this changes nothing. He is well known as the Star Wars kid and is famous because of the sfx people have added to the video. Add the information to the article by all means (if you have a source) but it doesn't change the fact he is known as the Star Wars Kid. --Tim 13:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, it does change it. If any person reads what I wrote, and then actually sees Soul Calibur's Kilik Exhibition, his/her mind will be changed, as they will know who he is actually imitating.
You fail to see the smaller picture of changing minds one at a time.
--ANDY
I agree with ANDY, I think we rename this article Soul Calibur Kilik Exhibition Kid. 128.97.156.157 23:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not denying that it is a Soul Calibur impression, but he is still known as the star wars kid, and wouldn't be famous if it wasn't for the star wars effects added in later by many people. Add the information about Soul Calibur to the article if you want people to know about it. --Tim 15:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it's as clear as you think it is.
First off, people can see the original star wars kid and a Darth Maul fight and Kilik's exhibition for research purposes. (Of course, this material is copyrighted so I don't know if it's welcome on a talk page, but then I've seen links to YouTube showing copyrighted material in articles, so who knows.)
Let me refute your points: it's unclear, if the video is of a Star Wars impression, whether or not the beams of light are supposed to project out the ends of the stick, or if they are part of the stick. You say the kid holds his hand at the end of the stick, which he'd try to avoid if it was the magic light. But if the light came out of the end, it wouldn't be the case. After watching the video a few times I don't remember him having his hand ON the end of the stick, just very near it.
As far as him touching the stick to the ground, well, a light saber can turn off one of its ends. He could just be careless.
It's unclear if his noises in the last part of the video are Kilik's stick whooshing through the air, or the light saber's buzzing/whooshing. Personally it sounds a little more like a light saber to me.
His choreographing is a lot more like Kilik than Darth Maul, but who says it has to be Darth Maul just because he's using a double sided weapon. It could be from a lot of fight scenes, and a lot of it could be original. Also, he never does the over the head nor tapping the ground that Kilik does.
The kid is just having fun with the camera. There is no reason he has to be 100% accurate to the Star Wars universe, nor even close. His carelessness is obvious when he steps on the cloth on the ground and slips.
Any resemblance to Kilik you see could be a coincidence.
I've seen it called a Kilik impression once in YouTube, and two or three times in blogs. Most people think it's a Star Wars impression. (But I was just doing a quick study, nothing in depth.)
So I think that the article should mention that most people believe it's a Star Wars imitation (because it looks quite a bit like one, and it's touted as one, and Soul Caliber isn't as popular so people don't identify with it), and some believe it's a Kilik imitation. See NPOV, No orginial research, and verifiability.
If I were bold enough, and a decent writer I'd edit it myself. Maybe I'll work up the nerve eventually. 70.66.9.162 11:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- You've posted the wrong Kilik movie. The one you putted here is from Soul Calibur II, which was released in 2003. Ghyslain made his video in November 2002. You need this one from the first Soul Calibur. -- 82.217.240.47 17:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- He's also been edited into clips from The Matrix, Hulk, Braveheart, etc.... but he's still SWK despite what he was actually imitating. That's what the public at large knows him as, and that's how it will stay regardless of how much you love Soul Caliber. Screw Kilik. --260 22:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe someone can find a video of said exibition by Kilik to compare, and if it's true i definetly think there sould be a mention of it in the article.
How many defendants?
The wording in the section about the lawsuits is a little confusing. Were there 3 or 4 defendants? --Chris Griswold 05:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Colbert
Colbert did a spoof on this tonite on the Colbert Report. Haha. BlueWiz7 00:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
That was hardly an impression of Star Wars Kid. Colbert was pointing out how ridiculous the blue (or green) screen usage was in the movies, implying that the actors do any real interaction comparable to the finished CGI production. Pencilneck 17:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- It looked a lot like a parody of Star Wars Kid to me, and I suspect he and his writers were well aware of it. I realize that he was making a point beyond just impersonating SWK, but he did have inspiration. Vivaldi (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- The media sez SWK. -- Zanimum 14:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
What is Trois-Rivières?
Is that a neighborhood in Quebec? Please forgive me for not knowing since I live on the other side of the continent in California, USA. But for me the information that he lives in Quebec is all I need to know about the issue. What is the reason for including Trois-Rivieres? It gives me the creepy feeling that it would make it easier for someone to look him up and find him rather than if just Quebec was given. I think it's cool to have an article on the cultural phenomenon of the "Star Wars kid", however when too much personal information is given it gives the wrong impression. I have taken out "Trois-Rivieres" twice and had it put back in again. I will not do anything more about it myself. Steve Dufour 01:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- By the way, I learned that Trois-Rivières is a town, not a neighborhood. However I still think the same logic holds. Steve Dufour 04:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
It's in the NNDB...if that qualifies as a reliable source, then it should be put back in there. Hbdragon88 05:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- The source is not the issue. The privacy of a child is. Steve Dufour 12:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- I don't agree with you there, Steve. Our concern is simply to repeat and summarise what has already been said elsewhere. We cannot censor the truth, be it for any non-legal reason. We cannot make decisions on content based on morality, compassion or sympathy, as such a decision is necessarily subjective, and objectivism is and always will be the first rule of an encyclopaedia. This article is a biography, and the town in which one lives is, in my opinion, an important fact. This town has been reported as being his by what we consider a reliable source, therefore it's inclusion is wholly justified. Yandman 13:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Raza is now 18, based on info in other articles about the court case. He is no longer a child. TheRealFennShysa 16:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- But still he is a private, not a public person. I think the article is cool. However his fame is online, not in the physical world. Steve Dufour 04:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Trois-Rivieres is a big place, with over 100000 people - I don't think we need to worry about his privacy... it's not like we're handing out his home address. Themindset 16:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- But still he is a private, not a public person. I think the article is cool. However his fame is online, not in the physical world. Steve Dufour 04:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Raza is now 18, based on info in other articles about the court case. He is no longer a child. TheRealFennShysa 16:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- I don't agree with you there, Steve. Our concern is simply to repeat and summarise what has already been said elsewhere. We cannot censor the truth, be it for any non-legal reason. We cannot make decisions on content based on morality, compassion or sympathy, as such a decision is necessarily subjective, and objectivism is and always will be the first rule of an encyclopaedia. This article is a biography, and the town in which one lives is, in my opinion, an important fact. This town has been reported as being his by what we consider a reliable source, therefore it's inclusion is wholly justified. Yandman 13:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS to move page, per discussion below. -GTBacchus 10:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Requested move
Star Wars kid → Ghyslain Raza – Although "Star Wars kid" is common, he maybe doesn't want to called him by that name. 성혀니see my work 14:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Survey
Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
- Oppose - he's famous as the star wars kid, so that should be the name of the article. Anyone who knows his name knows he is the star wars kid, but plenty of people know him as the star wars kid but don't know his name. --Tim 14:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, same reason. Don't new discussions go on the bottom of a talk page? Jefffire 14:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Strongly Oppose - As you say, "Star Wars Kid" is common. Would you move Bono to "Paul David Hewson"? And what he wants or doesn't want is irrelevant. Yandman 15:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. This has been done to death. Just leave it alone. Kafziel 16:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. This isn't really biography as much as it is dicussion of an internet phenomenon. And frankly, out of pure charity it would be kinder not to blazon the kid's name in big bold type at the head of the article. Mangoe 13:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, for all the same reasons. This is what people know "him" as, The Stars Kid, Charles Schulz, hated the name "Peanuts" for his comic, but if he changed it some people wouldnt get the memo. Its just a bad idea. We will confuse people. Thegrateone 10:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Discussion
Add any additional comments
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Original research
I have tagged the article with this. Things like "The tape was left in the basement" "It was downloaded many times" counts as original research. -- Selmo 19:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Numa Numa guy spoofs the Star Wars kid
Gary Brolsma has posted a video on YouTube in which he spoofs the Star Wars kid. link —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.47.216.137 (talk) 01:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC). I deleted an unsourced, unsigned, and libellous comment alleging that everyone has done something as embarrassing. VisitorTalk 15:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Hodgeman "Reference"
I think Hodgemens's reference is to fan films such as Ryan vs Dorkman and the like . . . http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=672422470842718521 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.157.62.110 (talk) 04:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC).
Added back cultural references
I added back the cultural references, though upon re-reading them they could certainly use some cleaning up. I just feel without the cultural references it is difficult to determine what separates the star of this Internet video from the several thousand non-notable Internet videos out there. 138.217.252.28 02:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
=Is he Still Like that
Overweight and all? Cause people like this I feel sorry for, and I wanted to know if he's okay. And if he is, shouldn't that be in the article?--24.22.212.250 23:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- ummm ... that makes a lot of sense. You think we should update this page with his current weight? And you feel sorry for "people like this"? Might I suggest some more time spent away from the computer, you know, getting out and meeting people? Hu Gadarn 22:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Weird Al Yankovic Video?
There is a brief scene in the "White & Nerdy" video where weird Al is parodies this kid.
settlement amount
The article says the settlement amount was around $150K Canadian, then that it was around $300K Canadian. Which is it?? 68.20.26.208 04:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
deleted opinion about humor
I deleted a section consisting of a single unsigned, misspelled and poorly punctuated one-line comment about the humor of the incident. This does not help to improve the article. VisitorTalk 15:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Photo
I took out the photo needed tag. If someone's notable for having embarrassing pictures of himself spread on the Internet, we should not spread more pictures and embarrass him further. If the letter of the rule doesn't say this (BLP comes close, but has a loophole), we should use IAR and common sense and not include a picture. Ken Arromdee 18:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Why Tony Sidaway removed personal references
I've removed all personal references to the identity of the child (he was fourteen at the time, I believe) from this article. It is not necessary for an encyclopedia to refer to the actual identity of a person in describing an internet meme, and as a top ten website we have an ethical responsibily to avoid invading the privacy of this person. Please don't restore the references without discussion, and please, not without strong justification. Some of the sources cited in this article identify him by name, so I'm not preventing anyone who needs to know finding his identity. I'm just stopping Misplaced Pages being one of the websites that needlessly hangs an albatross around this blameless young man's neck because of the acts of thoughtless individuals.
There are sourcing problems with this article, but for the sake of clarity I'm not addressing them in this edit. --Tony Sidaway 05:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- I made some more tentative edits. I removed the US dollar sums because he's Canadian and there's no reason to believe that any given reader will be helped by seeing amounts in US dollars in brackets after the Canadian sums. I removed some references to blogs, which frankly looked as if they were there to promote the blog sites. I removed most of the external links because we're not really a link site. Please leave a note here if you decide to add stuff back. --Tony Sidaway 06:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- These were helpful edits which improved the overall quality of the article, thank you Tony. Burntsauce 22:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Was any Misplaced Pages policy or guideline followed when this decision was made? I'm under the impression that this move is against WP:NOT#CENSOR; similar articles on internet memes (including Bus Uncle, a featured article) has displayed the name, including background on the subjects. --Madchester 19:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- How is this against WP:NOT? I think unless there is some pressing reason (which I can think of none) we don't need to list personal info about the dude. --Chuck Sirloin 19:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- To be complete and uncensored, that's why. It's one thing if the kid or his family have requested that his name not be mentioned in the article, but hundreds of other sites have already mentioned his name and identified him as such. Unless there's been an explicit and official request made for removal this is still censorship, since in essence we're removing content "because it might offend someone." -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue ) 04:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- How is this against WP:NOT? I think unless there is some pressing reason (which I can think of none) we don't need to list personal info about the dude. --Chuck Sirloin 19:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Was any Misplaced Pages policy or guideline followed when this decision was made? I'm under the impression that this move is against WP:NOT#CENSOR; similar articles on internet memes (including Bus Uncle, a featured article) has displayed the name, including background on the subjects. --Madchester 19:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- These were helpful edits which improved the overall quality of the article, thank you Tony. Burntsauce 22:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Popular culture section
I appreciate the attempt to catalog the meme's impact on popular culture, particularly on TV comedy.
We have this section in the article:
- The video and its subsequent popularity spawned many spoofs on television, including episodes of the Cartoon Network's animated series The Venture Bros. (Tag Sale -- You're It!), Dark Oracle ("Paintball Wizard"), and Arrested Development ("The Immaculate Election", "Sword of Destiny," "Prison Break-In,", "Ned's Declassified School Survival Guide" and "The Ocean Walker"). In 2005, CNET listed the Star Wars Kid as #8 on its Top 10 Web Fads list., while in 2007, the G4 tv show, Attack of the Show, rated it the number 1 viral video of all time.
I can see that we have a reference for CNET there, and the Attack of the Show rating, and we have a screenshot for Arrested Development. But the rest are just the names of TV series (and in some cases, the names of single episodes, which is helpful).
I think the problem I see here is that they're just episode names, and there isn't any source for the suggestion that these have been significant references to Star Wars Kid or have had any impact outside the viewership of those programmes. I want to conservatively trim this down to what we can verify, really. At present, this would probably be only the CNET and Attack of the Show references. It seems to me that these in themselves provide adequate context to the meme's penetration, whilst the list of individual shows are effectively raw data and there's no real encyclopedic point in just cataloguing them. --Tony Sidaway 13:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- I agree to some extent. What is left is from an attempt on my part to narrow down a REALLY long trivia list into a coherent paragraph, keeping only a couple of examples of the range of types of shows that featured spoofs. I think that having a nicely written paragraph can fend off many of the attempts to tack on all the more useless drivel while still showing that the video had a wide impact on television shows produced during the period. --Chuck Sirloin 15:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- What I see in that list is really not much use to me; I'm British and few if any of those those programmes listed are popular enough to be well known here. The Venture Bros, I'm informed by its article, is broadcast on cable on Bravo here. Dark Oracle Oracle doesn't seem to have made it out of Canada. Arrested Development is popular enough to have made it to the UK's least popular terrestrial channel, BBC 2, where is sank without trace. This isn't like Ricky Gervais clowning around with a light saber. In fact it seems quite possible that the programmes here were being targeted specifically towards an internet meme-aware segment of the youth market, and in doing so they didn't get far outside their home audience. On the other hand I could be quite wrong in this--but who's to say? The raw data by itself isn't as much us as the CNET and Attack of the Show evaluations, which place the phenomenon as an internet meme rathet than a cultural touchstone, although it was obviously a very popular one. --Tony Sidaway 17:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
ebaumsworld
why is the Youtube link directing to a video with an ebaumsworld watermark? it seems wrong --89.180.154.117 21:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC) {{editprotected}} Switch the current link to the video with one without an advertising watermark - http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=HPPj6viIBmU - hahnchen 00:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Done. --- RockMFR 00:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Where is all the info?
I think the article has been censored way too much. His name should be included. I don't subscribe to the argument that including his name is "invading his privacy" or hurting him in any way. Also on this talk page people are talking about how he had a mental breakdown and went to an insane asylum or something. But the article doesn't include any of that information. Also any information about bulling by his classmates is missing. What was the law suit actually for? Stealing the tape? Is embarasing somebody actually illegal in Canada?The Goat 15:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think not including his not only pathetic as it is also censorship and therefore probably illegal. --89.180.154.117 21:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- In which jurisdiction? By what law? --Iamunknown 21:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- "Probably illegal"? Um... Misplaced Pages is a private organization, which can host whatever it wants on this site. Neither you nor anybody has freedom of speech on somebody else's servers. -GTBacchus 21:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Excuse me but isn't Misplaced Pages an encyclopedia? Doesn't it have the duty to relay any notable information to it's readers? I mean, if we're going to omit this kid's name from this article why don't we just go over to the Fuck article and blur out all the bad words? And yes, his name is notable, it wasn't someone than shot Kennedy or someone that attacked Pearl Harbor, it was actual individuals. What next? Are you going to write in the preamble of the Dynamite article that a person invented Dinamyte but he's kind of ashamed of it so we won't put his name here, for his sake. --AnY FOUR! 01:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC) 01:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- The examples you give don't apply because this kid is no where near the level of importance as the things you mention and his name is really of no consequence. --Chuck Sirloin 00:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages just judged notability, not importance; NPOV is about presenting facts, not saying "foo is more important than bar." The real reason it doesn't apply is BLP only applies to living people, not governments or the dead. 70.135.135.25 05:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- The examples you give don't apply because this kid is no where near the level of importance as the things you mention and his name is really of no consequence. --Chuck Sirloin 00:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Excuse me but isn't Misplaced Pages an encyclopedia? Doesn't it have the duty to relay any notable information to it's readers? I mean, if we're going to omit this kid's name from this article why don't we just go over to the Fuck article and blur out all the bad words? And yes, his name is notable, it wasn't someone than shot Kennedy or someone that attacked Pearl Harbor, it was actual individuals. What next? Are you going to write in the preamble of the Dynamite article that a person invented Dinamyte but he's kind of ashamed of it so we won't put his name here, for his sake. --AnY FOUR! 01:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC) 01:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- "Probably illegal"? Um... Misplaced Pages is a private organization, which can host whatever it wants on this site. Neither you nor anybody has freedom of speech on somebody else's servers. -GTBacchus 21:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- In which jurisdiction? By what law? --Iamunknown 21:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- The article doesn't include any of that information (breakdowns etc) because no one has a verifiable source for them per the rules governing biographies of living persons. --Chuck Sirloin 00:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Why remove his name entirely?
(the above argument started off on a pretty bad foot, and I just stumbled back to this article for the first time in ages after wanting to show some coworkers the background on this character, so I've decided to start a sub-section within this point) I thought The Bus Uncle (which is FA) is a decent model for how the real name can be tucked where it at least contributes to the history and/or background players in the article. After all, he sued his tormentors, he's put himself into the news with his real name. I'm not saying re-title the article, or even put his name at the top, but I cannot see the reason for not including his name at all. This is a bit troubling, just because it's "sad" doesn't mean it shouldn't be included. I think the very notion of this noble but misplaces respect is POV on its face --when did Misplaced Pages start offering favors? I'm sure Gary isn't thrilled about being mentioned in Numa Numa. --Bobak 21:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- There's no legitimate reason to ban his name from inclusion in this article. Misplaced Pages is not censored. dcandeto 13:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
{{editprotected|Fix the censorship of the name.}} dcandeto 13:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Nope, not going to happen. This matter is closed, unless circumstances change in the future with regards to the person's encyclopedicity. FCYTravis 16:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- If the matter is unencyclopedic, then the article should be deleted. Banning the mention of Ghyslain Raza's name, but claiming that the rest of it is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia, is censorship, and such action is blatantly in violation of official Misplaced Pages policy. dcandeto 21:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- The article is primarily about the video and Internet phenomenon, not the person behind the video; don't conflate the two. Please have a thorough look at another important policy: biographies of living persons. Declining the edit request again. — TKD::Talk 21:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- I think you're confused; there was only one edit request. In any case, you should probably take a look at WP:BLP, since the name doesn't violate any of that policy—it's true, verifiable, and cannot, therefore, be libelous. dcandeto 21:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- No, you've activated the editprotected tag twice. It's standard procedure for an admin to un-transclude the template after fulfilling or denying the edit request. Please read WP:BLP#Presumption in favor of privacy, especially WP:BLP#Articles about living people notable only for one event and WP:BLP#Privacy of names. Three different admins now (as well as others above) have interpreted the BLP policy in favor of exclusion of the name, so you're not likely to find a policy-based consensus for including it. — TKD::Talk 21:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Just as I said, I placed it once. I later reverted the refactoring of my talk page comments. That's not the same thing; read the edit summary. In any case, I'll go ahead and remove Gary Brolsma's name from the Numa Numa article, since it's not encyclopedic, either. I'm glad to know I have your support. dcandeto 22:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, since she's notable for only one event, let's remove Jasmine Richardson's name from Richardson family murders, despite the fact that it's blatant censorship, and blatantly against policy. dcandeto 22:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)- Given the policy followed in Richardson family murders, keeping the article but suppressing the name is clearly a violation of WP:NOT. This article should be deleted in accordance with WP:BLP. dcandeto 22:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- That it is not libelous is of no consequence. It has been repeatedly determined that listing the young man's name is an unnecessary detail in an article which is not about the person, but instead about the Internet video. Misplaced Pages is not a tabloid. Policy and common sense dictate that we exercise restraint and sensitivity when our articles touch on the lives of real people. FCYTravis 21:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Gary Brolsma's name is equally irrelevant for the purposes of the Numa Numa article, which is about "an internet phenomenon based on amateur videos," and judging by the NYT article on him, Brolsma doesn't want the attention, either. I'm glad to know that you, too, support the removal of his name. dcandeto 22:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- No, you've activated the editprotected tag twice. It's standard procedure for an admin to un-transclude the template after fulfilling or denying the edit request. Please read WP:BLP#Presumption in favor of privacy, especially WP:BLP#Articles about living people notable only for one event and WP:BLP#Privacy of names. Three different admins now (as well as others above) have interpreted the BLP policy in favor of exclusion of the name, so you're not likely to find a policy-based consensus for including it. — TKD::Talk 21:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- I think you're confused; there was only one edit request. In any case, you should probably take a look at WP:BLP, since the name doesn't violate any of that policy—it's true, verifiable, and cannot, therefore, be libelous. dcandeto 21:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- The article is primarily about the video and Internet phenomenon, not the person behind the video; don't conflate the two. Please have a thorough look at another important policy: biographies of living persons. Declining the edit request again. — TKD::Talk 21:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- If the matter is unencyclopedic, then the article should be deleted. Banning the mention of Ghyslain Raza's name, but claiming that the rest of it is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia, is censorship, and such action is blatantly in violation of official Misplaced Pages policy. dcandeto 21:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Nope, not going to happen. This matter is closed, unless circumstances change in the future with regards to the person's encyclopedicity. FCYTravis 16:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- ←Well, the difference with Numa Numa is that, at least as far as I know, the subject's privacy is not, at least any longer, a point of contention: in fact, he's set up a website based off of the whole phenomenon. As for the murders, the issue is that the girl in question is only indirectly referred to in news stories, because of legal reasons. So editors had been connecting the dots themselves; however, this is a type of synthesis unacceptable as original research, especially when living people are involved. The article is founded on the uncited implication that the stories cited are, in fact, related, when there is no verifiable proof that they are. Here, we can omit names here without losing significant context, because, again, the main focus is the video. Regarding the censorship bit, there are lots of verifiable, legal things that we delete/remove from Misplaced Pages every day for being over-detailed or tangential. We don't list every single bit of data in existence, we don't mention every instance of profanity or nudity in television or movies, and we don't go out of our way to invade privacy. — TKD::Talk 00:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Jasmine Richardson is not mentioned by name in Canadian media for the simple reason that it's against Canadian law to mention her by name or identify her; those laws are wholly irrelevant because Misplaced Pages is not hosted in Canada.
- I'm not sure what you mean by "editors had been connecting the dots themselves;" given that it can be established from available sources that:
- Jasmine Richardson is a 13-year-old girl from Medicine Hat. (Her full name and picture were published until she officially became a suspect, because she was considered to be a missing person until she was found.)
- Jasmine Richardson's boyfriend is (was?) Jeremy Steinke.
- A 13-year-old girl from Medicine Hat, with the initials J.R., was convicted of killing her parents and brother, and Steinke was also charged in the crimes.
- A 13-year-old girl from Medicine Hat was convicted of killing Marc and Debra Richardson and their son, and Steinke was also charged in the crimes.
- The 13-year-old girl is the youngest convicted multiple murderer in Canadian history.
- There really aren't any gaps to fill in. What was stated in the article isn't original research; it's provided in the articles I link to above, among other places. There's no invasion of privacy—noteworthy criminals do not have any expectation of keeping the details of their crimes private. (We might as well omit Scott Peterson from any mention of his wife's murder.) dcandeto 21:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'd be uncomfortable with depending on that kind of synthesis in an article about the felony, especially combined with BLP issues. But BLP issues have different implications depending on the article; you're welcome to discuss the matter with Phil Sandifer. — TKD::Talk 01:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Edit request declined. However, I will place a protected tag on the article to prevent confusion. --- RockMFR 16:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Here's a simple test: has the kid (or his family) explicitly requested that his name not be mentioned? If so, information needs to stay gone per WP:BLP. If not, it's cut-and-dry censorship, since you're removing information because it might offend someone. (Not to mention the fact that you're bringing the quality of the article down significantly)
- I also don't buy the "his identity is not relevant" argument. That's like saying (to draw a Star Wars themed parallel here) that the Luke Skywalker article doesn't need to mention Mark Hamill because his identity isn't relevant to the article. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue ) 04:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- It's not going to happen absent a substantial set of new evidence that suggests that the subject wants to live something other than a normal private life. FCYTravis 08:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Or possibly a larger community discussion, rather than (just calling it like I see it here) a bunch of admins saying "no" instead of evaluating arguments. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue ) 08:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- No, I'm sorry, you simply don't understand. "Community discussion" cannot override living persons privacy concerns. I suggest you find some other battle to fight, because this one has long since concluded. FCYTravis 20:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- What "privacy concerns"? What evidence do you have that indicates this kid wants his name removed from the article? It's not a "privacy concern" just because a few admins say so. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue ) 21:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- The article itself mentions the whole scenario and lawsuit. It's not solely a matter of whether the subject has asked Misplaced Pages or the Wikimedia Foundation specifically. — TKD::Talk 05:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- The lawsuit was for compensatory damages over the release of the video; it was a punative measure, not a preventative measure. There have been no motions filed or any other indications that the family is trying to keep his name hidden from anybody. (I was not talking about Misplaced Pages specifically when I asked for a basis behind the "privacy" rationale) -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue ) 08:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- The lawsuit had to do with the posting of what was originally a private video. Regardless of whether it was punitive or not, it is clear that there was a case of unwanted publicity; there is no evidence that the subject or his family have changed their stance on this. I won't disable the editprotected below, since I've now become involved, but I would highly discourage the reviewing admin from restoring the name, given that there is no consensus to do so, and given that we should err on the side of privacy. — TKD::Talk 21:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- The lawsuit was for compensatory damages over the release of the video; it was a punative measure, not a preventative measure. There have been no motions filed or any other indications that the family is trying to keep his name hidden from anybody. (I was not talking about Misplaced Pages specifically when I asked for a basis behind the "privacy" rationale) -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue ) 08:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- The article itself mentions the whole scenario and lawsuit. It's not solely a matter of whether the subject has asked Misplaced Pages or the Wikimedia Foundation specifically. — TKD::Talk 05:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- What "privacy concerns"? What evidence do you have that indicates this kid wants his name removed from the article? It's not a "privacy concern" just because a few admins say so. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue ) 21:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- No, I'm sorry, you simply don't understand. "Community discussion" cannot override living persons privacy concerns. I suggest you find some other battle to fight, because this one has long since concluded. FCYTravis 20:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Or possibly a larger community discussion, rather than (just calling it like I see it here) a bunch of admins saying "no" instead of evaluating arguments. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue ) 08:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- It's not going to happen absent a substantial set of new evidence that suggests that the subject wants to live something other than a normal private life. FCYTravis 08:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
{{editprotected|Given recent discussion, it's clear that Raza's name should stop being suppressed. It's relevant, and there's no BLP issue to contend with.}}
dcandeto 21:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Not a chance any admin is going to willingly step into this mess. Editprotected requests are not for this kind of edit, especially if a page has been locked for WP:BLP concerns. Please do not re-enable the editprotected request with this request again. Cheers. --MZMcBride 21:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Fine. {{editprotected}} dcandeto 21:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Please create the AFD discussion page first, and then add a request here with a link to it. Then I or another admin will add the AfD notice to the page. Others can't create the AfD page for you because they aren't nominating the page for deletion; but if we put a message here it will be redlinked until you create the discussion page. So you have to create the discussion page first. The location for that page is Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Star Wars kid (2nd nomination). Follow the lower part of step II at ] and follow step III. We will take care of step I. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Fine. {{editprotected}} dcandeto 21:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
(Response from RFC posting) He has been covered extensively by the media under his actual name, the cat is long out of the bag on this one. Misplaced Pages is not censored; the real name should be used. Italia 15:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Coming from RFC, I agree with above. The name should definitely be mentioned per BLP and notability. If his name is used in the media and he hasn't requested it be removed. It should clearly be mentioned. The article should probably even be renamed to his actual name, opposed to "Star wars kid", which is just some label that has been assigned to him. Wikidudeman 21:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- What?
- The name should definitely be mentioned per BLP and notability. - A BLP-related interpretation would generally indicate the name be removed.
- If his name is used in the media and he hasn't requested it be removed. - Since when can someone "request be removed" from the media?
- The article should probably even be renamed to his actual name, opposed to "Star wars kid", which is just some label that has been assigned to him. - Why? It isn't a biography, it is an article about the video. --Iamunknown 03:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Coming from RFC, I agree with above. The name should definitely be mentioned per BLP and notability. If his name is used in the media and he hasn't requested it be removed. It should clearly be mentioned. The article should probably even be renamed to his actual name, opposed to "Star wars kid", which is just some label that has been assigned to him. Wikidudeman 21:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- Having read through this, the only reason I saw for keeping his name out is privacy concerns. Here's the relevant portion of BLP:
Caution should be applied when naming individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed (such as in certain court cases), it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When evaluating the inclusion or removal of names, their publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories.
- That's our guide. Please state the rationale (not argue either side) and how it relates to that. 69.12.143.197 16:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- The name is usually cited to a news story, not to one of the other types of secondary sources, and, given that the article is about the video and Internet phenomenon, actual names can be considered ancillary. That's the rationale for the current situation, given that BLP encourages erring on the side of privacy. — TKD::Talk 01:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Also relevant is the fact that this article does not function like a typical biography. The kid isn't notable for any other reason than this video, so the article is based on the video. Why add information that isn't relevant to the video? --Iamunknown 03:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd also like to add here that the Arbitration Committee takes BLP very seriously; there was a recent arbitration case where the ArbCom ruled:
Implicit in the policy on biographies of living people is the understanding that 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.
— TKD::Talk 02:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Do not use name. The name is not noteworthy to the story. The only reason this is noteworthy is because of the issue of the violation of privacy of a youth in school. Misplaced Pages should not join with one side of dispute in further naming him unless his identity is relevant, which it is not. I do not agree that editors must edit like amoral robots unless some policy specifically lays out to the letter of every possible circumstance how to be conscientiousness of privacy of private persons. If WP BLP does not say enough to protect school youths who become ridiculed media "celebrities" by some snark fluke like this, decency and fairness should be reasons enough not to further their problems by further invasion in WP articles. Venado 18:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- I support putting it in for two reasons: for one, the article reads awkwardly with so many pronouns. The other is that his name has been heavily publicized by the media, so us leaving it out for privacy concerns is pointless. I don't think it will afford him any more privacy when googling "star wars kid" has his name on the first page. The only legitimate reason for leaving it out is notability, there's a difference between mentioning his name and giving him a wikipedia article. BLP seems to support what I'm saying, too. It covers both points.
- I suppose the other way to handle this is make a wikinews entry with his name and link to it. 171.71.37.207 22:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Awkward wording is not a more important concern than the interests of a living person. You can't write a Wikinews entry on something which happened years ago. FCYTravis 22:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- But my second reason was that there's no reason to be concerned; if spreading his name is indeed harmful, it's already been done by many others, esp. those in the media. If it shows up on the first page of google results for "star wars kid" and we're leaving it out for privacy concerns, that's censorship. If it was buried in a legal document, that'd be another story. 69.12.143.197 16:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Argumentum ad populum - "if many find it acceptable, it is acceptable." That's a logical fallacy. We are not governed by what other people do. We abide by our own policies, and our own policies suggest that leaving it out is the best option. If you can make an argument that his name is so encyclopedically necessary to the article that it outweighs the privacy concerns inherent in this issue, then please do so. The non-argument that other Web sites list his name is irrelevant and will continue to be ignored. FCYTravis 16:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed (such as in certain court cases), it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When evaluating the inclusion or removal of names, their publication in secondary sources other than news media,
- The name has been widely disseminated, and has not been intentionally concealed outside of wikipedia. I admit, I haven't looked for it in scholarly journals. I was pointing out that according to BLP name and privacy concerns, since his name has been spread, our omission of it wouldn't afford him more privacy. I wasn't saying that since everyone else does it, so should we. 69.12.143.197 16:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- The name has not been widely disseminated in mainstream reports. FCYTravis 18:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- See , , , and . (Wired, USA Today, Globe and Mail, and BBC) 171.71.37.29 18:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Mainstream reports meaning anything other than a couple news stories. There's no loss of context, because the article isn't about his life and never will be. The default is to leave out, so please again tell us why it needs to be included. FCYTravis 18:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- VH1, 2007. It even mentions the suit and settlement in the clip. 171.71.37.29 18:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oh yeah, Webjunk, that paragon of sensitivity and class. Once again, the burden is on those who wish it to be included to explain why it is necessary for the article. FCYTravis 18:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Why did you significantly change your original reply after signing it? It read:
Four years ago. Not today. We're not putting it in. FCYTravis 18:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Mainstream is mainstream, and the Globe and Mail article was in 2006. Which wikipedia policy makes omission the default? 171.71.37.29 18:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oh yeah, Webjunk, that paragon of sensitivity and class. Once again, the burden is on those who wish it to be included to explain why it is necessary for the article. FCYTravis 18:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- VH1, 2007. It even mentions the suit and settlement in the clip. 171.71.37.29 18:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Mainstream reports meaning anything other than a couple news stories. There's no loss of context, because the article isn't about his life and never will be. The default is to leave out, so please again tell us why it needs to be included. FCYTravis 18:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- See , , , and . (Wired, USA Today, Globe and Mail, and BBC) 171.71.37.29 18:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- The name has not been widely disseminated in mainstream reports. FCYTravis 18:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Argumentum ad populum - "if many find it acceptable, it is acceptable." That's a logical fallacy. We are not governed by what other people do. We abide by our own policies, and our own policies suggest that leaving it out is the best option. If you can make an argument that his name is so encyclopedically necessary to the article that it outweighs the privacy concerns inherent in this issue, then please do so. The non-argument that other Web sites list his name is irrelevant and will continue to be ignored. FCYTravis 16:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- But my second reason was that there's no reason to be concerned; if spreading his name is indeed harmful, it's already been done by many others, esp. those in the media. If it shows up on the first page of google results for "star wars kid" and we're leaving it out for privacy concerns, that's censorship. If it was buried in a legal document, that'd be another story. 69.12.143.197 16:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Awkward wording is not a more important concern than the interests of a living person. You can't write a Wikinews entry on something which happened years ago. FCYTravis 22:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I hate it when users claim that their interpretation of BLP is the correct one and then set it in stone, and that all others fail due to logical fallacies such as Argumentum ad populum. The removal of the name as made unilaterally, and has been opposed. There are multiple sources mentioning the individual's name. Our prime concern should not be an ethical one, over whether the insertion of a name could prolong his victimisation, but whether or not the identity of the protagonist is a relevant piece of information for an encyclopedia. I say it is, his identity is no secret, nor will it disappear. In order to present a comprehensive article on the video, the star's identity should be made known. - hahnchen 23:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- You're being very reasonable about this, and I have to respect that. Then again, I'm a little biased, here. I'll agree that the debate should be over whether inclusion of his name is warranted on the grounds of notability. 171.71.37.29 00:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- The BLP policy is clearly sensitive about privacy of private persons. WP:BLP1E addresses situation where an individual is otherwise not notable except for a single event. quote "Cover the event, not the person". If a short video of an unnamed school boy goofing in privacy of his own school just happens to leak out and go viral (student never gave permission to disseminate)--isnt the school boy unwittingly involved in a trivial media event due this sensitivity? He was anonymous in video which was the "single event". If he does not deserve this consideration in the policy, who does?Venado 17:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- True, but "cover the event, not the person" is vastly different than "cover the event and don't mention the person at all." The quote from WP:BLP1E is just meant to stop articles about internet memes and such from going into detailed biographical information on the person that isn't at all relevant to the event. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue ) 23:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- The event is covered. Naming the person could only achieve one thing: to continue the vindictive and inhuman bullying of this private individual. Misplaced Pages will not be used for that purpose. --Tony Sidaway 23:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- I interpret "cover the event, not the person" as meaning don't give the person an article or make the article centered on him. I don't see any reason that policy means don't mention his name, though. Saying his name is part of covering the event, posting a biography at his own page is not. I second what Y|yukichigai said; no one is fighting to give him his own article, so bringing up WP:BLP1E is pointless. 69.12.143.197 02:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- He was bullied. That was the story. To cover the story with decency means to avoid facilitating the bullying. That is why his name is not in the article The story exists solely because of some anonymous assholes, who are not names in the article, We are not bullies. We will not name him. --Tony Sidaway 16:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- "We will not name him." Who are you to make decisions on wikipedia and not be willing to discuss things? I'm not sure how including his name facilitates bullying. Wp:blp#Privacy_of_names covers this. 171.71.37.29 18:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Remind me what part of WP:DECENCY covers this. Or to cut to the point, remind me how making sure that subject coverage is "decent" isn't synonymous with censoring an article. Since insofar as we've been able to establish WP:BLP does not actually address this situation that seems to be the only justification for removing the information: an arbitrary notion that leaving it in might hurt or offend someone, which is a fairly cut-and-dry definition of censorship if I've ever heard one. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue ) 21:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Who cares what his name was? It is not important to the story and the only purpose it serves is to make the dude's life hell. Don't show it. --Chuck Sirloin 19:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- How does it make his life hell? What percentage of people who read the article will actually talk to him? 171.71.37.29 20:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- All it takes is one. One person who reads it and gives the guy a hard time. The arguments for leaving it out outweigh any argument for its inclusion. -Chuck Sirloin 20:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- If his name wasn't widely published, that'd be a valid point, but again, Wp:blp#Privacy_of_names states that it's different when the name hasn't been hidden and hasn't been distributed by the media. His name was far from hidden and published by media. Let's say he's applying for a job and someone Googles his name. All the results are about him being the Star Wars Kid. Realistically, he's not being protected by wikipedia omitting his name. Most of the arguments for leaving his name out come down to the end justifies the means. 171.71.37.29 00:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- All it takes is one. One person who reads it and gives the guy a hard time. The arguments for leaving it out outweigh any argument for its inclusion. -Chuck Sirloin 20:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- How does it make his life hell? What percentage of people who read the article will actually talk to him? 171.71.37.29 20:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- He was bullied. That was the story. To cover the story with decency means to avoid facilitating the bullying. That is why his name is not in the article The story exists solely because of some anonymous assholes, who are not names in the article, We are not bullies. We will not name him. --Tony Sidaway 16:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
The name was recently added, and I removed it. I think that this MSNBC article is particularly revealing. The boy has gone through harassment and derision due to a video which he did not even agree to upload to the Internet. We do not need to contribute to that, and we can discuss the "Star Wars kid" Internet phenomenon in an encyclopedic manner without revealing his name. --Iamunknown 03:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- You will note that the same article uses his name. In fact, I challenge you to find any article about the event that doesn't use his name. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue ) 03:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, the article, from an online news source, does use the boy's name. Are we an online news source? I was under the impression that we are an encyclopedia. Our standards may and do differ from those of an online news source. --Iamunknown 03:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Red herring. All of the information on Misplaced Pages must be cited to other sources, online or no. Furthermore, what "standards" are you talking about that say his name needs to be omitted? WP:BLP only suggests we remove the name if it hasn't already been widely disseminated (it has) or the subject has gone to lengths to obscure his name from the general public (he hasn't). -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue ) 04:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, the article, from an online news source, does use the boy's name. Are we an online news source? I was under the impression that we are an encyclopedia. Our standards may and do differ from those of an online news source. --Iamunknown 03:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, all of the information on Misplaced Pages must be cited to sources, online or no. Are you asserting that means that we must omit nothing that a source includes?
- The boy has gone to great lengths, including a law suit, to do what is possible to preserve what privacy is left the conditions. Do you suggest that, because every online source that has ever reported the video has not retracted his name, that he has not attempted to retract his name? Do you actually think it possible, even if he wanted it?
- You may twist WP:BLP into suggesting that his name may not be omitted, but you are ignoring the spirit of the policy, which is a presumption in favor of privacy. We, you and I, can presume that the boy would prefer his name be private, even if the news media outlets have not honored this desire, can we not?
- How can you contribute to a situation that has landed the boy in a psychiatric ward? It is unconscionable. --Iamunknown 04:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- He's gone to great lengths? Really. Where? The only "evidence" you have to support that is the lawsuit he filed against the kids who uploaded it to Kazaa in the first place. As I've said before, that's a punitive measure, not a preventative one. You seem to think that he and his family have in ANY way attempted to stop his name from getting out; if that's the case, then where are the legal motions, the gag orders, anything? More to the point, if he doesn't want his name out there then why hasn't he sued any of the sites hosting his video to take it down, especially the one that offers a "make your own Star Wars kid remix" kit?
- The fact is he and his family have made no efforts to prevent his name from getting out. Atop the fact that his name has been widely disseminated by the media WP:BLP does not come into play here, and furthermore I find it highly unlikely that this will "contribute to a situation that has landed the boy in a psychiatric ward," as you so emotionally put it. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue ) 04:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- First, I do not support such a quick reinsertion of his name. That's why we're discussing it.
"How can you contribute to a situation that has landed the boy in a psychiatric ward?"
- Then how is having a page on the star wars kid any different from mentioning his name? Was the release of his name the root of the problems, or was it the release of the video? As long as this article is here, by your logic, we contribute to the situation. Even if we remove the links to the video, finding it is trivial. If you feel the spirit of BLP is to withhold his name so we're not contributing to his problems, than it's also in the spirit of BLP to delete the article. 69.12.143.197 05:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
If his name is already out there, then it should be in the article. Misplaced Pages is not censored. How is his real name not encyclopedic (to the extent that the "star wars kid" is even encyclopedic at all? (Rayraymitts 00:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC))
- I find it bizarre how his name is censored, yet the article uses references that still contains the individual's name. If his name is not to be used in the article, than the supporting references should also be void of his name. --Madchester 00:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. It's very weird many articles in mainstream (and other) news mention his name, and there hasn't been any attempt to withhold is name, but Misplaced Pages is debating doing just that. I'm actually curious when the idea came from. 70.135.135.25 05:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
First name only?
Would it be reasonable to include only the first name (and indeed what appears to be the name by which the subject is usually referred to online) in the article - ""Star Wars kid" is an Internet phenomenon which started when a video clip recorded by a fourteen-year-old French Canadian male high school student known as "Ghyslain" was shared online by a number of other students."" David Mestel 20:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- That isn't a common name; it looks more like a handle. 69.12.143.197 00:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- I don't get what your point is here; that's his name, like it or not. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue ) 07:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- My point was mostly that it might be confusing for readers. 70.135.110.144 06:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC) (different IP, guy from before)
- I don't get what your point is here; that's his name, like it or not. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue ) 07:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- No part of his name is relevant to this article about bullying. --Tony Sidaway 07:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- How about the part where you identify the subject of the article? -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue ) 08:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- This person's name should not be mentioned in the article. Compare, Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Doc glasgow#Outside view by Newyorkbrad, and see also the "basic human dignity" principles recognized in the Badlydrawnjeff arbitration. Newyorkbrad 18:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well, there's a significant difference between mentioning only his first name, which is also how he's known online (and therefore possibly the handle readers will know him by), and his full name, which would allow him to be identified IRL. David Mestel 18:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- This person's name should not be mentioned in the article. Compare, Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Doc glasgow#Outside view by Newyorkbrad, and see also the "basic human dignity" principles recognized in the Badlydrawnjeff arbitration. Newyorkbrad 18:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- If his first name were "Tony" or "David", that might come close to being a good argument. There is no reason to use any part of this name because this article is not about the person. --Tony Sidaway 00:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- I don't read BLP that way. There's no reason to give him his own article, but names are just how we identify people. Star Wars Kid didn't make the video, he did, and he's certainly part of the topic enough to be mentioned. 171.71.37.29 19:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- How about the part where you identify the subject of the article? -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue ) 08:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Name debate
There are a few issues here, and they should be debated separately.
Encyclopedic
Don't debate this. The community has decided multiple times that this article is encyclopedic and shouldn't be deleted.
Notability
Disregarding privacy concerns, is his name notable enough to mention? If so, is it notable enough to warrent a separate article?
From Misplaced Pages:BLP:
Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Misplaced Pages article about a larger subject, but remains of essentially low profile themselves, we should generally avoid having an article on them. If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a redirect or merge are usually the better options. Cover the event, not the person.
- Paragraph 2 states that a separate article is probably not warranted (I agree), but it implies that mentioning a name directly associated with an event is fine, barring other (privacy) concerns. If inclusion of a name was a concern, it probably would have been addressed in that paragraph.
- In the section addressing privacy concerns, this sentence implies that names of people directly involved in an article's topic are indeed notable: "Editors should take...care when considering whether inclusion of the names of...individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value." 171.71.37.29 20:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Privacy
Should his name be omitted due to privacy concerns?
From Misplaced Pages:BLP:
Caution should be applied when naming individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed (such as in certain court cases), it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When evaluating the inclusion or removal of names, their publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories.
Editors should take particular care when considering whether inclusion of the names of private, living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of the privacy of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved persons without independent notability is correspondingly stronger.
In all cases where the redaction of names is considered, editors should be willing to discuss the issue on the article's talk page.
- Wired, USA Today, Globe and Mail, BBC, VH1, and MSNBC have all published his name. I am not aware of any scholarly publication of his name, however. His name has been wideley diseminated by mainstream media of multiple countries, including Canada, where the event occurred. His name can be found in multiple pages, and on the results page, itself, on the first page of Google search results for "Star Wars Kid." His name appeared after the event in the context of the later lawsuit. No effort was made to keep his suppress his name in the lawsuit.
- The arguments being presented in favor of omitting the name either focus on his privacy (addressed above), and the ethics of publishing his name causing him more anguish, harm, distress, etc. If this is the reason for omission, the article's presence must also cause him emotional problems. If we remove his name to protect his emotions, we should remove the article for the same reason, but both are clearly censorship. Once Misplaced Pages believes that censorship is justified as it protects people's emotions, is integrity as an encyclopedia suffers. 171.71.37.29 20:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages is not censored!!
Don't remove his name. ۞ ░ 20:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hello, BlueLotas. First, I've removed three words from your comment about Clinton and Lewinsky as inappropriate per WP:BLP. Second, we as editors may decide when or when not to include something - That is not "censorship", it is Misplaced Pages:Editorial discretion. Third, your arguments to include information in this article based on the fact that we do not omit information from other articles is a red herring and a logical fallacy. Focus on this article and the merits of the information you included, not on other articles. Fourth, your edits are not "minor", so please do not mark them as minor. Thank you, Iamunknown 21:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think it's a red herring or a logical fallacy. The Hitler point was bad as BLP probably doesn't apply, but the Clinton example has some merit. Why should we concern ourselves with the Star Wars Kid's feelings when we don't with public figures'? The only logical fallacy I see is that BlueLotas might be assuming that we should show equal concerns for people's feelings in their biographies, not pick and choose whose feelings matter. 70.135.135.25 01:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- I have removed your absolutely inappropriate and disgusting comparisons from this page, BlueLotas. Do not replace them. Despicable. FCYTravis 16:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- I would remind people that our legal counsel is now Mike Godwin, so violating Godwin's Law in the context of debate on talk pages is now self-referential as well as unbelievably lame. Good grief. Guy (Help!) 07:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- FCYTravis and Iamunknown, what part of "don't edit others' comments" do you not understand? BlueLotas is making a comparison, and regardless of how much you like the comparison it is not acceptable to remove it. FCYTravis, you in particular should know better, particularly because this kind of craptastic behavior can get you banned. Leave the comments alone. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue ) 11:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- If removing arguably-libelous comparisons to Nazis will get me banned, then Misplaced Pages is not worth using and supporting. FCYTravis 18:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- FCYTravis and Iamunknown, what part of "don't edit others' comments" do you not understand? BlueLotas is making a comparison, and regardless of how much you like the comparison it is not acceptable to remove it. FCYTravis, you in particular should know better, particularly because this kind of craptastic behavior can get you banned. Leave the comments alone. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue ) 11:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)