Talk:Genie (feral child)

Photo req?

Why does someone want a photo on here? Seems completely inappropriate to the subject matter.

How can we compare Genie's skills to that of a normal child? How do you feel about the case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.140.16 (talk • contribs)

how do we know of butler's ulterior motives?? is this fact or speculation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.226.48 (talk • contribs)

The photo gives information (thousand words) about the person. Xilliah (talk) 14:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Her name

she was referred to as "Jeannie "redacted" on the Arcadia, California article so I changed the page name to that. though feralchildren.com says the correct spelling is Genie. Arual

I added her address because it was used in a presentation I did to the Temple City Historical Society in September, 2006 JoeW4 05:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The correct spellig is Genie. I've never seen "Jeannie". What's the source for this?--Cúchullain ^t/c 06:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

A Wikipedia user called her by this name Jeannie "redacted on the Arcadia, California article. Don't know who, don't know why. Arual

I moved it back. I can't find anything on her being called Jeannie "redacted. If it turns out that's her real name or something, provide a source.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't know it would be too hard to find out her real name at this point. However, "Jeannie "redacted" is going to need a reference, as she is almost always referred to as just "Genie".--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Genie was the name used, not Jeannie. Her name is available if you know where to look but out of respect for her, it is not published. Her mother has died but her brother is still around. It was David Rigler who became her foster parent, not James Kent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.62.235.21 (talk • contribs)

Uh, out of curiosity--is there a way to redirect to this page if a person is searching for 'Jeannie' or 'Jeanie'? After watching a documentary on this girl and wanting to know more, I made this mistake and had quite a time trying to find this actual page. Actually, I DID search for "Genie" after a while and came to the page on "Genies," or djinns... no disambiguation page. In other words, what I'm trying to say is - is there a way to make this page easier to find? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.191.151.167 (talk) 08:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

Done. See Jeanie (disambiguation). Wjhonson 17:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Masturbation thing.

"She masturbated excessively, which turned out to be the most serious anti-social behavior problem of all. Many of the items she coveted were objects with which to masturbate and she would attempt to do so, regardless of where she was {{Fact}} (Robertson, 1987 -- need full reference for this)."

This might be vandalism. is it true?--Havermayer 01:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the Nova documentary and I also I heard it from my psychology professor. It's not vandalism, but it will need a source.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Might we want to use another word than "excessively?" It seems pretty POV, since no amount of masturbation (that doesn't cause physical harm, of course) is considered "excessive" by the mental health community.

Perhaps "inappropriately" would be suitable, indicating that she masturbated at times and places not sanctioned by society (if that's indeed the situation; I'm not familiar with this case at all, having just run across it through a link)?

Septegram 16:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The masturbation issue is highly suspect. I've studied this young girl for quite a while and have never come across anything alluding to this, moreover, feral children never exhibit this behavior. This may be the work of an idiot professor hoping to trap his students in a bind.

Well, I was mistaken about it being mentioned in the Nova documentary, looking through the transcript. [1] Where did you hear feral children never exibit the behavior? That could warrant removing the line, since she's the most famous one, so the source would clearly include her.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

This behaviour is described in detail in Susan Curtiss, 1977, Genie: A psycholinguistic study of a modern day "Wild Child",Academic Press, and ::::was both excessive and inappropriate. Two theories are suggested, either that it was her only form of pleasure during her years locked in a

room, or that a behaviour typical to toddlers usually suppressed by parental admonishment was not suppressed in her case. How do you

manage to 'study this young girl for quite a while' without reading the standard workon the case? That makes me doubt the assertion that 'feral ::::children never exhibit this behaviour' - there are so few and their histories so diverse, I can't imagine anyone who knows what they're talking ::::about making such generalisations. Inappropriate/excessive masturbation is a symptom of various mental illness and disturbances, so it's

perfectly plausible in this case, as well as being documented.

It's also mentioned in Genie: a Scientific Tragedy, by Russ Rymer.

As well as in the chapter "Where is tomorrow, Mrs. L?" in the book "Savage Girls and Wild Boys" by Michael Newton

I haven't read Susan Curtiss's work, or Michael Newton's book, but I have read most of Rymer's, and the information is definitely there. Aside from the rapid decline in progress Victor was making, when he hit puberty, inappropriate masturbation was an issue with him as well, for which Itard bled him to deal with it. Genie masturbated in public as she had bowel movements in public; In her peak times, when she was happiest and best taken care of, it was a rarity. She found other things to interest her, and behaved mor 'appropriately' in public. When she was distressed, or during more 'depressing' times, for the lack of a better word, she reverted to these behaviours. Im-Mersion

The masturbation sentence was incorrectly citing the NOVA transcript as its source.

It was supposed to be citing Curtiss. Thanks for the catch.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Real name

According to a UK TV Channel 4 Programme on Oxana and other feral children she is the daughter of Clarc and Irene Wiley, and has a brother John. -- Chris 73 | Talk 08:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

"Loss of funds and interest" problem

"Genie had not yet learned full grammatical English and only went so far as phrases like "Applesauce buy store."" implies that genie was capable of learning full grammatical english. this is not necessarily true. current theories of language acquisition--specifically those regarding a "critical period"--should be given a cursory mention at the very least. and the fact that genie played in integral part as a specimen in those studies makes it all the more important that it be mentioned.

Name

Surely it's supposed to be "Jeannie"

• No, "Genie" was the pseudonym those working with her adopted to protect her identity. It was supposedly chosen because she appeared as suddenly as a genie from a magic lamp, and answered researchers' wishes for someone to confirm their hypotheses about language acquisition. Lusanaherandraton (talk) 07:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Biographical details

Sourced from primary documents, can be found here. Wjhonson 02:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Although her full, real name is sourced above, I've removed the direct link from the article since the website it points to is my own. If someone wants to add the link back to satisfy the {{fact}} request, feel free to do so. There is no prohibition on one Wikipedia citing another's work.Wjhonson 23:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I readded the reference to your site. I wish we had a source to something besides a personal website, but the information is checkable and correct and there's no reason to doubt you, and that's what really matters. Thanks!--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It surprised the heck out of me. I wasn't even looking for her name. I was looking for an obit on her father who shot himself at the end of 1970. Finding her name, right there in the *newspaper* was serendipity in action. Something genealogists dream about :) Wjhonson 23:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Ignore

Removed a segment I'd written. I've decided I'd like to have more time to read, elaborate, and organise the information before proposing additional content for the article. I'm assuming this isn't a problem on a talk page. Im-Mersion 08:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Genie's Brother

What became of Genie's brother? Where does he live? Does he have a family? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.16.151.77 (talk) 21:25, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

image

would an image from the nova documentary be acceptable to use in this article? Ospinad (talk) 03:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, but one should definitely be added if possible. Photos of her are very distinctive. Salopian (talk) 17:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think copyright would be a problem in taking a frame from the documentary.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought it might be a problem too which was why I also asked Quadell (who is known for being a strict deletionist) and he said it would be ok. For An Angel (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Present Day

Is there any reliable information on Genie's current linguistic abilities, and if they've improved or regressed since her time being rehabilitated? 68.230.161.164 (talk) 05:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

There's not really any information about her current status at all, unfortunately. Salopian (talk) 17:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It is pretty unfortunate that we don’t know her current status as I’m quite curious of her. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 08:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent deletions

Alex Baack does not appear to have any standing to say Yes, No or sideways about what we say about Genie here. See his bio bit here. Wjhonson (talk) 17:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

This particular editor may not have any relation to the subject of the article but Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of names can be interpreted to mean that we shouldn't include Genie's real name since it's been well established that those close to her intentionally kept her name secret for her own protection. I say we keep it out. For An Angel (talk) 17:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

This reasoning is flawed. First it has not been established at all that anyone kept her name secret "for her own protection". It has only been established that some people have used a pseudonym. That is standard practice when reporting in scientific papers of this sort. Second, we at Wikipedia must use our own reasoning on when to mask names, not anyone else's reasoning. In this particular case, there is no current justification for hiding her name. It has already been widely reported on the internet. Wjhonson (talk) 23:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It has not already been widely reported on the internet. A google search for [2] pulls up this article, your website [3] and a few websites that obviously got the information from Wikipedia. However, Russ Rymer's book, Genie, An Abused Child's Flight From Silence states and I quote:

"Clark's idea of protective custody is described in Susan Curtiss's doctoral dissertation, which was published as a book -- Genie: A Psycholinguistic Study of a Modern-Day 'Wild Child' -- in 1977 by Academic Press. In both the dissertation and the book, the girl is referred to not by her real name but by her scientific alias, Genie -- the name used in the symposium papers, the psychology magazines, and the textbooks and contrived in order to protect the child's identity. Page 17 (emphasis mine)

Also, saying that only "some" people use Genie as a pseudonym is VERY misleading as you can tell by searching the number of sites that refer to Genie by her real name, [4] (448) and those that refer to her by "Genie" with no mention of her real name [5] (6570). Also you can see that the number sites that refer to her only by her real name and not by her pseudonym is nil [6] So as you can see, the VAST majority of people, when referring to her, use the name Genie and not her real name.

we at Wikipedia must use our own reasoning on when to mask names, not anyone else's reasoning.

It almost sounds as if you mean to say, "Wikipedia must use my reasoning on when to mask names, and not yours." I am NOT using anyone else's reasoning when I say that I think we should keep her real name out of this article. I am citing Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of names which is a policy here on Wikipedia. And as it says there, "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed (such as in certain court cases), it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context." And since omitting her name does not result in a significant loss of context, especially considering the fact that her real name is not widely known and she is mostly known by the name Genie then her real name should be removed from the article.

I know that since you were the one who initially discovered her name in an old newspaper you must feel that if it is removed from the article then all that work would go unnoticed, but I think you should recognize your conflict of interest here and if you still have a problem with it you can post a message on the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard For An Angel (talk) 01:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia poicy is pretty clear here. Wikipedia is one of very few sources online that uses her real name which I think meets both the "not wideley disseminated" and also "intentionally concealed" standards. I was all set to come here and support using her name in the article, but I think the policy is actually quite clear here. Jessamyn (talk) 12:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

After considering this I agree we should leave the name out, though we need to calm down a bit. The name was intentionally concealed to protect Genie when she was a child. Though she's not a child anymore, there's no evidence that her caretakers now want her name unconcealed. Plus her real name has not been widely disseminated, the only source I've seen on the internet is Wjhonson's excellent site. I'd say we'd better remove it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

First, it is standard-practice in scientific papers to use pseudonyms for your subjects. The fact that a pseudonym was used for Genie is not material to whether we should continue to so do. Second journalists and researchers who find material, do not have a conflict-of-interest, I fear you are mis-understanding the policy, I suggest you post the case to the conflict of interest board, and/or the BLP board for wider input before you insist that all journalists naturally have conflicts-of-interest merely based on what they report. Third their is no credible source that her name was intentionally and permanently concealed by any legal jurisdiction when she was a child or at any other time. Whether scientists who were studying her did so, should not be material to the journalistic point-of-view which we here have.Wjhonson (talk) 00:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Here are just a few of the papers in which her name was reported as "Susan "redacted" : Oshkosh Daily Northwestern (Oshkosh, Wisconsin); Reno Evening Gazette (Reno, Nevada); Albuquerque Journal (Albuquerque, New Mexico); Bennington Banner (Bennington, Vermont); Holland Evening Sentinel (Holland, Michigan); Iowa City Press Citizen (Iowa City, Iowa); Kingsport News (Kingsport, Tennessee); Lima News (Lima, Ohio); News Journal (Mansfield, Ohio); Post Crescent (Appleton, Wisconsin); Yuma Daily Sun (Yuma, Arizona); Bucks County Courier Times (Levittown, Pennsylvania); Chronicle Telegram, The (Elyria, Ohio); Coshocton Tribune (Coshocton, Ohio); Derrick (Oil City, Pennsylvania); El Paso Herald-Post (El Paso, Texas); Florence Morning News (Florence, South Carolina); Fond Du Lac Commonwealth Reporter (Fond Du Lac, Wisconsin); Manitowoc Herald Times (Manitowoc, Wisconsin); Morning Herald (Uniontown, Pennsylvania); Nevada State Journal (Reno, Nevada); Red Bluff Daily News (Red Bluff, California); San Antonio Express (San Antonio, Texas); Sheboygan Press (Sheboygan, Wisconsin); Stevens Point Daily Journal (Stevens Point, Wisconsin); The Advocate (Newark, Ohio); The Capital (Annapolis, Maryland); The Chillicothe Constitution Tribune (Chillicothe, Missouri); The Daily Courier (Connellsville, Pennsylvania); The Daily Report (Ontario, California); The Daily Times News (Burlington, North Carolina); The Daily Tribune (Wisconsin Rapids, Wisconsin); The Gettysburg Times (Gettysburg, Pennsylvania); The Progress (Clearfield, Pennsylvania); The Times Recorder (Zanesville, Ohio); The Zanesville Signal (Zanesville, Ohio); Valley News (Van Nuys, California) Wjhonson (talk) 00:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The following edit was recently made on a page in my watchlist. I disagree with it, but not strongly enough to revert it. Since it cites this discussion as explanation in the edit summary, I am documenting it here.

I am strongly opposed to the, "if there's a possibility of offense don't say it" argument. Offense is always logically possible. Were the "possibility of offense" criterion seriously and consistantly applied, all speech would be immoral. If there are ever grounds for censorship, these must be something like "reasonable likelihood", and even then the question is vexed. It would seem to me that "reasonable likelihood" of offense or harm would entail strong consensus among rational people aware of the facts that the harm or offense was likely. Even a 2/3 majority in favour of reasonable likelihood would be too small to establish this -- consider the requirement of a unanimous verdict in a trial by jury.

For those interested in expert analysis of the issues, a very bad paper is found in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on 'Free Speech' (available online). It does have a reasonable bibliography, and covers the basic points above well, since these have been fairly clear in the literature for centuries.

I don't vote and my comments here are inadmissible regarding consensus in the issue to hand. Cheers all Alastair Haines (talk) 02:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Real Name

I've just transcribed the UPI article published in Oshkosh, Wisconsin on this case here. Read it for yourselves. Her name was widely disseminated in 1970. The fact that a few people later decided to hide it, is not relevant. Wjhonson (talk) 01:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Listing the names of random newspapers doesn't prove anything and how do I know you didn't right that article yourself since that article is not found on www.thenorthwestern.com. The fact that they decided to hide her name after the case became public is completely relevant for the simple fact that time doesn't work backwards. If it was hidden at first then later made public then you would have a point that there'd be no need for us to hide it again. But since the only sources that you can find that use her real name are from the 1970's, and everything that has been written about her since then doesn't then it would make sense for us to continue referring to her as just Genie. For An Angel (talk) 03:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not my fault that you do not have a useful subscription to a newspaper clipping file. I have provided the full transcriptions from two of those newspapers for your perusal on my article. I invite you to visit it, so you can assure yourself that at the time, the names of all parties and all the gory details were spelled out in full color across the country. Once you have done so, I'll accept your abject groveling apology. (That's a joke.) Wjhonson (talk) 06:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

And I'm certain that you are aware that The Northwestern.Com Archives only goes back to Jan 2007 right? Yes you are. This article is from 1970 which I'm quoting. Wjhonson (talk) 06:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly my point. The article that you are quoting isn't available online so I either have to take your word for it or pay for a subscription just to verify you which I would rather not do. Either way, even if what you say is true, it still doesn't change the fact that although her name my have been reported in a few newspapers for a few months at the time, everything that has been written about her since then has hidden her name. This is the reason why the google searches I showed you above showed that the only online sites that had her name are the ones that got it from this article after you added it here. I know this may be hard for you to understand because you found this information relatively recently so to you this information is new but her name has been hidden for at least the past 30 years. Plus, we have no proof that Genie herself wants her name widely known so in this case I think it would be prudent to err on the side of caution. It is hardly a stretch to interpret Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of names to mean we should omit her name. For An Angel (talk) 13:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason to doubt Wjhonson that the name appeared widely in newspapers at the time, but if there was/is an attempt to conceal her identity (it does not appear in the Nova documentary, made 20-odd years afterwards) then we should probably err on the side of caution and leave it out. We should seek input from others on this, I'm going to file with Requests for comment/Biographies.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) For those who don't want to go to the link I provided to read it, I will repeat part of what it says here:

Oshkosh Daily Northwestern (Oshkosh, Wisconsin), 17 Nov 1970, page 1 "Could Have Been Normal" "Parents Are Arrested for Retarding Child" Arcadia, Calif (UPI) — Susan Wiley, 13, is deformed, unable to talk, wears diapers and has the mental capacity of an infant.

Contrary to what you assert For An Angel, there is no need to pay a subscription to read this newspaper. The microfilm of the newspaper travels through Inter-Library-Loan which is free more-or-less, and you can also get a copy by writing to the library where it's stored. The subscription fee is only a convenience item. If you re-read our policy discussing this exact point at WP:RS and WP:V you will find that we do, in fact, cover the issue of subscription fees and free resources. You are welcome to take your concern on this matter to the reliable sources noticeboard if you'd like more clarification. Wjhonson (talk) 20:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You seemed to have missed my point. I said that even if what you said was true, it doesn't change the fact that her name is not well known today, that almost all of the people who know about her know her only by the name Genie, and that even if her real name is verifiable through reliable sources (all of them most likely from the time she was rescued in 1970) that we are talking about a living individual, one whose location and real name has been concealed for over 30 years. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of names is for her own protection. Either you don't care, or you just keep forgetting what she went through. I think the only reason why you want so badly to keep this information in the article is because you were the one who found it. Well, congratulations. But it doesn't mean it belongs in the article. For An Angel (talk) 21:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry you are supposing facts *not in evidence*. The fact that you, by a Google search, cannot find references, does not imply that her name "has been concealed for over 30 years." As you well know Google is highly slanted toward modern representations. The only thing your Google-search shows is that her real name is not well-known to those who have copied over and over a few sources. We do not base our work on what Google does or doesn't show however. So your argument is not germane to this encyclopedia. We do not conceal names which have been widely disseminated merely because they have been forgotten in Google searches. Wjhonson (talk) 03:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, how exactly is "what she went through" relevant to this discussion?Wjhonson (talk) 03:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It's relevant because after reading her biography it should be obvious that Genie is the very definition of a private individual. She was famous for a few years over 30 years ago but since then she has been living in an undisclosed location, and everything that has been written about her since then has referred to her as only Genie. The proof that her name has been concealed for over 30 years is the fact that all of the references you found that use her real name were all written over 30 years ago! I'll ask you again, why is it that you want so bad to add her name to the article? For An Angel (talk) 12:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

False dichotomy. Supposes evidence not present. I found sources *from* 35 years ago, that does not imply that *all* sources except those suppress her real name. I'm sure you had a course in logic and can see the large hole you create in the middle. You want Google to show her name, even though we know that Google is time-sensitive and modern-skewed, and yet when I prove that there are sources which name her, you reverse the tables making the bald claim that those are the *sole* sources which name her. Your argument is silly circles. Wjhonson (talk) 00:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I said that all of the references that *you* found were from over 30 years ago. I was assuming that you tried to look for *any* sources that used her real name and were only able to find ones from long ago. Either that or you were only looking for sources from that time and didn't even try to find any recent ones. So which one is it? If you tried to find recent ones and couldn't then that is my proof. I know that Google is modern-skewed, that is sorta my point. If we can't find Genie's real name using Google, and the vast majority of what is on Google is recent, then doesn't that mean that most of the recent sources that talk about Genie *don't* use her real name? Whether or not there were sources from the 1970's that don't use her name is irrelevant to our argument. You have already shown that there were sources from the 1970's that used her real name, fine. But I am still convinced that most of what has been written about her in the last 30 years or so has *not* used her real name. To prove to me that her name hasn't been concealed for the last 30 years you will have to show me *recent* sources that use her real name. Something that qualifies as "widely disseminated". If you can do that then I will admit defeat. For An Angel (talk) 14:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Real Name (Part 2)

I'm not seeing any support for yor position. Our policy on privacy addresses people whose names have *not* been widely disseminated. Susan's has been. It was just *forgotten* by Goggle entries. Doing historical research however is part of our mission. There is no bar that I must find more sources than I've found already. I'd suggest you take this case to the BLP noticeboard if you want to continue this discussion, to gain wider input. The RFC doesn't seem to have created any. Wjhonson (talk) 03:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No support? So far Jessamyn, Cúchullain, Forceproductions and myself have all said to remove her name whereas you are the only person arguing to include it. The fact that all the sources that you found were from over 30 years ago doesn't prove that her name hasn't been concealed for the past 30 years. There is no reason to assume Genie's real name has simply been "forgotten". If Genie herself has been remembered until this day, then her real name would have been remembered too, if it wasn't intentionally concealed shortly after her discovery. As I said before, to prove that her real name hasn't been concealed for the last 30 years you will have to find a *recent* source that uses her real name. I have added a request at WP:BLP/N, hopefully we will get more input than we did with the WP:RFC/BIO For An Angel (talk) 12:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Quoting Wjhonson: "Doing historical research is part of our mission."

Wikipedia policy says "no original research". WP:NOR

In my opinion, citing another website where you have posted the results of your research is a violation of the intent, if not the letter, of the 'no original research' policy.

To look at this another way, WP:Verify says: "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer."

The other sources for the article, including the Nova transcript, use the name Genie. There is no good reason for Wikipedia to go further. Wanderer57 (talk) 16:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I too believe that it is inappropriate to use her real name in this article. This is a real woman, presumably living under her real name, with carers trying to give her as normal a life as possible. She probably goes out shopping, to the library, to day programs, to the beach. It is completely inappropriate for every Tom, Dick and Harriet with whom she interacts at the store/library/beach to have access to what should be a confidential history of abuse. Laws were clearly different in the past, but there are very good reasons why these days no child in similar circumstances would ever have their name released publicly. She was given the pseudonym Genie to protect her privacy, and her real name forgotten for reasons of confidentiality. BLP policy says "Do no harm". There is absolutely no benefit and very real possible harm from digging up her name. Wjhonson, I would go as far as to urge you to think about the implications of having her real name on your website. I realize it is a bit of a coup for a genealogist to have found all this out, but is it really appropriate (or even ethical) to let this particular Genie out the bottle? She is famous in psychology and linguistic circles and the possible harm of people knowing who she is, what she experienced, and getting interested in what she has become, are huge. Slp1 (talk) 22:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Real name (Part 3)

In the above there are a few misconceptions of policy. First looking up information in sources is never considered "original research", it is rather "source-based research" Original research involves the "creation" of new statements never before seen, not the discovery of statement already published. The vague BLP policy "do no harm" is further extrapolated into exact definitions. One of these covers names which "have not been widely disseminated". This is not that case. Her name has been widely disseminated. If you feel we should alter that language, I would suggest taking up this crusade on the BLP talk pages. This is not the appropriate place from which to change our long-standing policy. Wjhonson (talk) 20:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You are right, this is the context of the "do no harm" sentence, which is an even stronger appeal that I made above:

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

And see this

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

She is known for one thing in her life, her name was not included in any scholarly journal or work of recognized experts. In fact it has been intentionally concealed by them. Noone has published her real name for 30 years, it is hardly widely disseminated. You do not have consensus of other editors on this page to include her real name. It is totally irrelevant that it was included in the article for a year. WP:BLP policy does not appear to support its inclusion, and the two people who came from the WP:BLP noticeboard post argued strongly for its removal. After all this, if you want to try and get consensus on the BLP page that the inclusion of this information, which adds nothing of significance to the article, should be included, feel free. --Slp1 (talk) 20:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Wjhonson, you keep trying to gloss over the one most obvious and undeniable fact. By simply saying, "her name has been widely disseminated" is not the whole truth and you know it. The fact is that it was, only immediately after she was discovered. But for the past 30 years her real name has been concealed. You want us to believe that it wasn't intentionally concealed, that her name has just been forgotten. But you can't explain why Genie herself is still remembered to this day even though her real name is not. The only answer that makes sense is that her name was intentionally concealed for her own protection. For An Angel (talk) 00:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not correct to say "for the past 30 years her real name has been concealed." I already pointed out above how we have no evidence for that situation. I can give you a reason why her real name has not been remembered. Ninety nine point ninety nine percent of people cannot remember names they read in newspaper accounts a week ago. That situation however is not how our policy reads nor is it how it should be understood. We do not base our articles on what people happen to remember.

Almost everything that happened before 1995 is "forgotten" by Google, we don't however base what we publish here on what Google remembers. "Do no harm" is not the sum-total of BLP as you know, it's more complex than that. We do harm all day every day is some of the BLP's we have simply because the harmful details have been published and widely disseminated when the event occured. We cannot give the appearence of consistency while reporting with one hand, and hiding with the other, the exact same set of issues. We have hundreds of BLPs that cite situations involving arrests. We do not remove them, and yet they "cause harm" if you will. BLP does not state that we shouldn't publicize harmful details. The advantage to the project is consistency in our approach, not just with modern events but with historical events as well. Treating historical events in a different way from modern events is inconsistent. Wjhonson (talk) 01:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Wjhonson, I am not relying on Google, and I know you are not. With all your resources find just one reference to this woman using her real name in a mainstream newspaper in the last 5 years. Or even 10. I can't find one. Can you? Find her real name used just once in a scholarly journal or book, which after all is what the policy says we should weight more highly than newspapers. Can't be done, I've tried. And I am sure that you understand that there is a big difference between an adult being arrested and a child being abused.

There is no added benefit to having her name, lots of potential for harm, and many BLP policy reasons not to include it, as 6 editors appear to agree. re "Treating historical events in a different way from modern events is inconsistent." Yes it is inconsistent, on purpose and quite deliberately, precisely because of the living people who are affected by what is written here. Slp1 (talk) 02:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Slp1: In my opinion you are setting the bar far too low when you say "Find her real name used just once in a scholarly journal or book". Wanderer57 (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I agree. Still has to be widely disseminated so it would need to be quite a few scholarly articles or books --Slp1 (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Wjhonson, you are completely wrong. I can use Google to look up the names of the Egyptian pharaohs going back 5000 years. My point is that if a person remains notable until this day then their name will still be remembered also. How many other Wikipedia articles on people can you find where the person became notable before 1995 but whose name is not "remembered" by Google? If they are still notable then their name will still be remembered. If their name has been forgotten then chances are they are no longer notable. 99.99% of people who are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article will not have a name that was simply forgotten by everyone that remembers them. Genie's is a special case because she is still notable but her name is not. The only reasonable explanation is that her name was intentionally concealed. For An Angel (talk) 14:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I think if her name was intentionally concealed by scholars etc. in the last thirty years, we should not feel that it's okay to publish it just because we can. Ashton1983 (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Mmm. This gets more interesting and even more complicated, I fear. Having looked several times and found nothing, I just found this 2006 book, [7], published by a university press, that names her. I note that they use her real name once and Genie the rest of the time, and it is only one book, but this more recent scholarly source makes the decision to omit the name less clear. What do others think? Slp1 (talk) 20:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC).

Slp1: How would this discovery change your opinion, as expressed three hours earlier? Wanderer57 (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it does, but it might affect the opinion of others. It is only one book, thus not 'widely disseminated' but it is recent and from a scholarly source. --Slp1 (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

While I personally find a lot of claims of do-no-harm ridiculous when something is easily googlable, this isn't easily googlable. Whether or not the name has been concealed deliberately there is a definite possibility of doing damage if this name is put here. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering also do we really have to put her real name in the headings on this discussion page. Why not just "Real name", "Real name (Part 2)", and "Real name (Part 3)"? Ashton1983 (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The only reason why I made a point to say that her name was intentionally concealed was because the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of names policy says , "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." For An Angel (talk) 18:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

First her name has *not* been intentionally concealed as Slp just proved. Her name *has* been widely disseminated which I proved. It's not "easily googleable" because we don't base *historical events* on what Google does or doesn't show. The *event* occurred 35 years ago. That's why it's not googleable. Google does not determine what we here do or don't do. It is a useful tool, but it is not the entire system. If the AP and UPI both disseminated her name to over three dozen articles, and that's just the ones I found quickly, that is "wide dissemination". Some editors may not like it, but that's what occurred. As Slp, who is one of the only people to do independent research on the matter showed, her name has not been intentionally concealed for thirty years. Wjhonson (talk) 05:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious why you would insist that her name *must* be used even on the discussion page, in section headings, when others have expressed misgivings about that. Is that *so* important that you can't just let it go while continuing to argue about the article itself? I disagree that Slp has shown that her name has *not* been intentionally concealed for 30 years. Finding one book that deviates from a particular norm (and even then apparently tries not to over-publicize the name) does not mean that the norm does not exist. There is no doubt that the reason she has been known as "Genie" in scholarly literature, news reports, etc. is precisely because that decision was taken for Genie's own protection and privacy. If some day the majority of literature discussing her starts using her full name, we can certainly follow (perhaps we could even follow if a significantly-sizeable minority did it) but it doesn't strike me as something that we'd want to lead in. Ashton1983 (talk) 06:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been reading the Biography of Living persons page, and I completely agree with what For An Angel says. Ashton1983 (talk) 06:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The idea that we need "scholarly articles or books" in order to cite sources is quite wrong. Our policy on sourcing is "reliable" sources, those do not need to be books or scholarly articles. The fact is still the her name was widely disseminated at the time of the event. Why is it, that not one of you wants to discuss this most cogent fact?Wjhonson (talk) 07:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do not suggest that no one wants to discuss this point. As I wrote to you on my talk page three days ago:

"Hello Wjhonson: Thanks for the feedback. I did read the information. I do not question for a moment your statement that this horrible business, including the child's name, was published in 1970 or so. We differ on what that means.

I believe that the information is largely forgotten now, that publicizing the name again may do harm, and that under the BLP policy we should not publicize it."Wanderer57 (talk) 15:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I am willing to discuss it. What is there in particular to discuss? It was some kind of criminal case, and was reported in the news at the time. That was 35 years ago. Standards have changed. We're supposed to be more sensitive and responsible now. Perhaps when she was originally discussed, with her real name, the reporters, etc., hadn't fully thought through the possible implications for her. Perhaps eventually they said, "Whoops. That was stupid and careless of us. Let's stop doing it." I don't deny that they did it originally. But the point which I think you're forgetting is that when they stopped doing it, it wasn't just because people had lost interest in the case. (Genie has been a major part of scholarly literature about child development, language acquisition, etc., throughout that last 35 years, as far as I know. She has never been forgotten.) It was because her name was *deliberately* concealed, and for her protection. And it seems to have been concealed with considerable success. So why would we be the ones to mess with that? Ashton1983 (talk) 07:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Slp do you wonder exactly where they got her real name from?Wjhonson (talk) 07:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ashton this is an encyclopedia, not a social conciousness forum. Ashton they did not "stop doing it". It stopped being news is all. I'm sure you can see the difference. Here is yet another document which names her as "Susan "Redact" Wjhonson (talk) 07:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yet more details here showing her mother's full name, parents surname etc. Not concealed, never was concealed. Available for anyone to view and read. Wjhonson (talk) 07:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The first link is to a pdf version of a newspaper from 1970. We already know that the media used her real name at the time. It doesn't say, though, that this is the child who was later to become known as Genie, so if it weren't for the discussion going on here, I could have come across that article, and still not have known Genie's name. Likewise, in the second link, her real name is given, but it doesn't say that this is Genie. *You* are the one who keeps wanting to point out that this person with this name is Genie. This http://kccesl.tripod.com/genie.html is an article from 1981 which states that she was given the name Genie by the psycholinguists who tested her, *to protect her privacy*. Ashton1983 (talk) 08:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's summarize so far.

What does WP:BIO say?

WP:BIO states that we should be cautious in revealing the name of a person known for one event.

WP:BIO states that it is often preferable to omit the name when the name hasn't been widely disseminated, or intentionally concealed, especially when the omission of the name "does not result in a significant loss of context".

WP:BIO states that we should give greater weight to the publication of the name in scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, rather than the news media.

WP:BIO states that we have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of our actions and "do no harm". "BLPs must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy."

I think we are all agreed that:

Many newspapers in the US revealed the name for a very short period in 1970 (though I do wonder if they weren't mostly reprints of the AP or UPI articles by local papers)

Apart from one book, no scholarly source (journal articles, books) or any other published media (newspaper, TV) has revealed her name since.

My view is that the name has not been "widely disseminated", particularly in the scholarly journals/books etc that we are supposed to prioritise when making this decision (which is why what scholarly journals/books decided to do is important, wjhonson). Hundreds and hundreds of books published in the last 15 years mention her experiences and call her 'Genie' alone.[8] And in any case, I don't agree with wjhonson that Genie stopped being 'news'. In fact there have been multiple articles mentioning her in the last fifteen years in New York Times, The Boston Globe, The Washington Post, Chicago Sun-Times, The Globe and Mail, The San Francisco Chronicle, the New Yorker, even People magazine for goodness sake, none of whom have named her other than by the pseudonym either. These days newspaper have codes of ethics which prevent the naming of child abuse victims,e.g. [9] .

I agree with Ashton1983 that there may come a time when others (media, journals etc) decide to use her real name again in significant numbers. Then we can follow their lead. But in the meantime, Genie is best known by her pseudonym, and there is "no significant loss of context" by omitting her real name. And indeed there is considerable possibility of harm of revealing it: even the comments on this page show that her story and current situation still evokes curiosity and interest. [10], and I see no good reason to expose a real-life woman to this curiosity and intrusion. We are enjoined to "write conservatively with regard to the subject's privacy". I concur with all of the 7 other editors (Jessamyn, Cúchullain, Forceproductions, For An Angel, Ashton1983, JoshuaZ, Wanderer57) who have edited here that our BLP obligations suggest we omit her name in this article. Wjhonson, you have reverted to the version including the name multiple times despite a clear consensus on this page. Please do not revert again without changing the consensus here first.--Slp1 (talk) 13:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

as I have been speaking at some BLP discussions for a very narrow interpretation of "do no harm", I think it appropriate to add a comment: in my view this is one of the cases where the policy applies. This is perhaps one of the cases to which the policy most obviously clearly and rightfully applies, and even if we did not have the formal policy it would still seem to me to be indefensible to use the real name. DGG (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

We have gone through a similar discussion at WP:RfD a couple of weeks ago with Andrea Spinks and whether that redirect page should be deleted because she no longer wishes to be associated with her former career (that of porn actress and model). One of things that were brought out in the discussion that is pertinent here was that the former model's name should not be deleted because she was a public person (at least in the earlier career) whose name was public record and widely available, often on the same pages as her stage name.

Now what about here? Genie, Jeannie, etc., did not choose to be a public person. The cause of her notability was imposed upon her. The relatives have tried to keep her real name "out of circulation"; she is now 38 and lives in an "undisclosed location." Evidence indicates that she never had a say as to whether she wanted to be publicized (in fact, her caretakers seem to want to keep the name out of public view). There is nothing to be gained by stripping away a part of her privacy: her real name is not important here - her story is. Please keep the real name out of this. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 16:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

She was actually discovered in 1970 not born in 1970. So she would be around 50 today. For An Angel (talk) 18:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction, For An Angel - I think it actually reinforces the point that I was trying to make. If there is a necessity for revealing her name in a public forum like this, it should be done only after she is passed on.147.70.242.40 (talk) 19:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The points made above from WP:BIO are really good (imo), especially since they existed before this discussion. I am also pleased John Stuart Mill's "harm" argument has entered the discussion. The most powerful argument (imo), though, is that Susan has not sought publicity. But having said this, I want to challenge the case being made for not using her name. Let me start by repeating the excellent points from WP:BIO.

• WP:BIO states that we should be cautious in revealing the name of a person known for one event.
• WP:BIO states that it is often preferable to omit the name when the name hasn't been widely disseminated, or intentionally concealed, especially when the omission of the name "does not result in a significant loss of context".
• WP:BIO states that we should give greater weight to the publication of the name in scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, rather than the news media.
• WP:BIO states that we have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of our actions and "do no harm". "BLPs must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy."

The first is quoted out of context. In WP:BIO it is a caveat regarding notability. Notability is not the issue here. In fact, Susan is not known for one event, she is known because her sad circumstance have attracted a myriad of researchers interested in a range of nature-nurture debates. I simply have to trust that researchers interacting with her has actually led to funding being available to care for her. In my case, knowing of her prompts me to pray for her (though I don't need a real name for that), but that is all by the by. She is notable due to an extended set of circumstances, not a single event. Point one above fails for relevance and fails in fact.

Point two is really three points. Each one addresses an issue relevant to this discussion. Point one -- Susan's name has been widely disseminated, this has been verified, end of story. Point two -- badly worded, ungrammatical (scoping of not) but ultimately ambiguous because of the generality of simple tenses in English. A narrow scope reading would give us "if anyone, ever intentionally concealed" a wide scope reading gives "if this event as a whole has explicitly involved intentional concealment of identity." The first reading is impossible to verify in general and cannot be the intention (although it would apply here). The second reading must be the intention (and it makes much better policy). It presumes a single event or a cluster of related events and requires a clear intention to conceal. Neither of these apply to academic treatment that have used a psuedonym. They follow practices unrelated to the case so do not constitute intention to conceal. Additionally, they have no jurisdiction with regard to Susan or her identity, its concealment or release. (Which is precisely why academic practice is as it is, of course.) The last point is, however, telling in our case. Susan's name adds precisely no helpful context. Hence, to my view, the ultimate decision at this article is profoundly unimportant, however the rationale behind whichever decision is made is of vital importance (hence my commenting).

Point three is again quoted out of context. Journal coverage is more "weighty" than media coverage in establishing notability (and is more closely fact checked, so better verified). It is not journal style over media style that is to be a guiding principle. To be quite honest, I think encyclopedic writing falls approximately between these styles, in a general arm-waving way, and that is our dilemma here. Which way do we jump? I might add, that to jump for Genie on sociological grounds is not to jump journal-wards, it is to jump press-wards. Despite the "without fear or favour" motto of journalism, they are much more regulated than academics, who have a number of protected freedoms. But whichever way we go, there are at least three distinct issues: facts/context - style - rationale (including ethics).

Point four is fabulous and very deep. It certainly applies and we need to discuss it. Not simply for Susan's sake here, but for the sake of others we may write about, but also for our readers and for our own integrity. The issues it names but doesn't define are "law", "harm" and "privacy". The first is clear enough and I've seen no evidence of legislation applicable to our decision here. I think "harm" needs to be construed in some convoluted and non-intuitive fashion if we are to believe it applies here. I think the real issue at stake in the whole discussion boils down to trying to understand the relationship between public writing and the privacy of those written about. As far as I know, there is rhetoric and legislation regarding this, but no serious academic treatment of uncontroversial repute.

I will close by saying I don't understand the final issue sufficiently well to comment. I think it is genuinely important. It is simply not true that "people with nothing to hide need not fear personal information being published." On the other hand, the New York Times publishing a front page headline with "We love you Susan" and a sketch of details seems hard to construe as anything but the strongest possible statement of community inclusion and support.

My two cents? Let her be human, call her Susan, not Genie. Leave off the surname, does that extention matter? Does she have a middle name? Call her Susan. It is her name. Who do we think we are to change it?Alastair Haines (talk) 03:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I have not heard any impressive arguments FOR including the name. Wanderer57 (talk) 03:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

And I have not heard a coherent case for excluding the name. That's my point, it doesn't matter what we do, it matters why we do what we do. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Alastair, for your extensive comments here. I have always had great respect for the opinions you offer, so find myself a bit disconcerted to find that I disagree with you! But I appreciate your academic rigour in wishing to be clear about why we are making this decision. I appreciate the 'humanising' motive that you offer, and that it does not appear that you are suggesting the inclusion of her full name. But I do disagree on a number of points:

• Do you really consider that the name is 'widely disseminated' when the name has been revealed (as far as we can tell) by only once in the 100s and 100s of books/articles/films that have been written about/made on the subject in the last 37 years?
• You say 'Susan' is her name and "ask who are we to change it". I believe that 'her name' in the context of this 4 year episode of her life is, 'Genie'. That is how she is known in the literature and in the media. I ask, who are we to change it?
• I don't agree that that point one "Caution should be applied when naming individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event" is quoted out of context: it comes precisely in the privacy of names section of the policy,[11] as part of the Presumption of Privacy section, nothing to do with notability issues. I also believe that she is known only for one event: if it were not for the discovery of her abuse, and book written about how she 'recovered' from it, we would never know about her at all. She has done nothing before or since to be worthy of coverage.
• Once again, I don't agree that point three regarding bias towards scholarly sources, is quoted out of the context. In the Privacy of names subsection, the policy specifically reads "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."[12]

My case (whether it is coherent or not!) for excluding the name is that there is a real and significant possibillity of harm to this woman (from people whose current relationships with her will be changed by knowing her past, and from the curious who want to get to know her to find out what she has become). The name is not public knowledge, having been revealed only very rarely in the last 37 years: adding it here would significantly increase its dissemination, and I see no reason why we should initiate a trend. Particularly as there is absolutely no benefit to the article, as you agree. It seems to me that the Presumption of Privacy and particularly the Privacy of names section of the BLP policy clearly guide us to err on the side of privacy in this case. So does this ArbCom case, in my opinion.[13] --Slp1 (talk) 13:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for speaking kindly both of me as well as my jumble of text. I felt uncomfortably pushy writing it. I am thrilled to be able to admit my negligence in consulting the policy. I didn't read the whole policy and so missed that there are two locations where the "single event" point is made, and that indeed both fall under the general head of Presumption of privacy. My challenge that quoting the policy on this point is out of context obviously must be withdrawn. However, I'm afraid it is not at all clear to me that Susan's case is a single event at all. If it is a single event, can you tell me please what that event was? Perhaps a date or a time or a location? Single events are normally thought to have these properties.

The intention of the policy seems to be to highlight that certain Wiki articles with significant biographical content, or certain kinds of biography are very specific in nature. Three died in Lituya Bay tsunami, for example (non living, though). However, are cases like Susan's really like this? David Reimer is probably what I have in mind and influences my thinking in this case. There are significant differences (like the fact that he died about the time Wiki started), but there are similarities, certainly as regards his notability extending beyond a single event.

Since her name was reported very extensively in the press at the time assistance was sought, and since the press archives are publically available, her name Susan has been a matter of public record in libraries across the United States for 30 years, and it still is! Indeed, I can obtain a copy of some of these press reports at a research library I visit reasonably often here in Sydney, Australia. If any serious attempt at protecting her identity has been made, it would involve a legal change of name. Perhaps that has been done. If it is important, it will have been done.

It appears I was wrong about the press v journal comment in the policy, or I lazily jumped at the first similar sentence of two in the article. To be honest, I can't understand the point as it is documented in the right context of the article. It appears to be suggesting that if the only verification we have is a short press report, this is insufficient to establish that naming is appropriate, while if journals use a name, this may constitute a stronger claim for the decision to use a name. On this interpretation I would have thought it doesn't really help much, since there is so much press coverage across libraries in the US that the accuracy and publicity of the name are clearly established by this alone. I stand by what I said previously regarding journal article conventions.

I am a very long way behind everyone here, and I should back out of this debate. Wikiproject biography has struck me again and again as a vital part of Wiki. The more I read, the more I need to know about the people I encounter. Life is about people (not fame, of course). The things people do and think are wonderful. This article causes trouble because it's not precisely a biography, Susan's neither famous nor infamous, but rather renowned for her misfortune. I think this adds complications. I'm not as used to the issues as workers at the project are. Thanks for such a courteous welcome to your "family feud", please make up quickly, 'cause we need you guys doing other stuff rather than arguing about this.

If you ask me, appropriate authorities will already have done what is necessary to protect Susan from the harm that having her name in public libraries less than 30 mins drive from 80% of the US population for 30 years might do her. If we were putting her at risk, I think Jimbo would have had a tap on the shoulder from some men in black ties already. If Susan's welfare rested on little more than Wiki consensus, I'd be terrified. So I'd not be thinking the "for naming" people here are socially irresponsible; but, since a surname is completely unneeded and a first name is only a matter of style, I'd think the "for privacy" people are hardly seeking to suppress valuable info.

Don't do any harm to your own team in this process! Now have a great day y'all! Alastair Haines (talk) 16:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I won't answer in detail, but I will just add a couple of brief thoughts. I agree that "the single event" definition poses some semantic difficulties, but I would argue that her 10 year confinement is the single (though very long) event that aroused the interest of media and researchers, in the same way as the Star Wars kid's video was the single event. In both, the follow up stories/studies were extensive corollaries to the original episode. Neither has done anything of significance before or since. And thirty-seven year old newspaper archives may be available in libraries and even these days on the internet, but there has actually been no direct linkage to connect that person with the Genie of the article, the books and the films. And actually still isn't in the Reliable sources way, bar one book. It is still not easy to find her real name even on the internet, but even including her first name would make it much, much easier. And note this website gives an option to donate, without revealing either first or last name!![14] In the end, however, I agree with you that this is not so much a biography in the strict sense, but about a case, a study in the history of linguistics/psychology. The case is famous for what it does or does not teach us about a critical period in language development, and about whether/how researchers may victimize their 'subjects' in trying to gain knowledge. The girl is called Genie almost universally in reliable sources. Her real name is not important, except the humaniser you describe, and given interest in this woman and the consequent possibility of harm, I don't see that as enough justification for its inclusion. --Slp1 (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit of a BLP hawk so perhaps this comes as no surprise but I agree, there is absolutely no reason to include her name, and I think this is one of the clearest cut cases of 'do no harm' amd 'presumption in favour of privacy'. I should add that there is an unwritten (well I think unwritten) consensus that we are even more conservative with information concerning children and although she is an adult, her condition sadly means that she is sadly still a child in many ways. The article is not in any way better by the inclusion of her name. BTW, I should add that it doesn't matter whether something is a 'matter of public record'. From what I've seen it appears to be rather easy to find stuff like birthdates of people in the US from public records. However it's clear cut OR, and also a clear violation of policy to include someone's birthdate if your only source is a birth certificate or other such public record. While in this case it is not OR since we have reliable secondary sources, it doesn't change the fact that something being a matter of public record, is not in itself sufficient justification to include it in the article. Particularly when issues like privacy and potentially harm come into play, there needs to be a reason why something is particularly important to the reader's understanding (not just of minor interest) of the topic which in this case there is none. At the very least, the information should be already widely covered in reliable sources which from briefly reading the discussion, it isn't (it may have been for a short time, but this had died down and nearly all reliable sources covering this person have decided that it is not important for whatever reason for the reader to know) Nil Einne (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The general issues for BLP have been going around in my mind a bit. I'll just drop a couple of generalized suggestions here. If, or how, they relate to the current case, I trust you to work out, it's not really my field. But here are my general thoughts.

• Presumption of privacy is a distinctive feature of BLP and derivitively for all of Wiki. If it's appropriate for BLP, it's appropriate for biographical content in any article. I think it would be helpful for Wiki if there was a small Wiki task force from BLP and WikiProject Philosophy that attempted to articulate a working definition of privacy in a Wiki context. This would help us understand better, hence evaluate issues better and result in, hopefully, better outcomes.
• Do no harm is well-known and intuitive as an ethical principle. However, the "shape" it takes varies by case. There are strong "situational ethical" elements, but some objectivity about may be possible in many cases in the following areas.
• The specific nature of the harm that might be possible. (Life, limb, property, reputation.)
• The degreee of harm that this entails. (Total, catastrophic, substantial, trivial.)
• The relative likelihood of harm. (Certain, likely, possible, unlikely, impossible.)

To my thinking. If harm is a genuine issue. It will be easily possible for a group of editors to provide hypothetical outcomes that could be evaluated as above.

For example:

• If we provide Osama bin Laden's address, it is likely this would result in loss of his life.
• If we name David and Goliath Pty Ltd as responsible for "Boys are Stupid T-Shirts", it is possible this will result in loss of income.
• If we report Dr Jane Doe's new wonder drug, it is unlikely she would suffer financial loss from attempts to copy her formula AND it is impossible she will lose any property, because she lives in a convent.

One thing criteria like this could achieve is to improve community satisfaction with decisions and reduce empty debate. It would cost time and effort to gather facts to achieve the result. Of course, there is a lazy alternative, which is to argue correctly that we know so little about the person and circumstances, that we must assume there are risks and hence provide no information at all. It would seem more constructive (and encyclopedic) to think about what facts are needed and where reliable sources of those facts may be found (remembering of course that all facts will never be available and no source is 100% reliable).

From what I've seen, BLP people discuss the things above all the time, because their experience and insight has alerted them to these issues. My suggestion is that documenting criteria like this may be helpful. They could serve as a "scafold" describing assessment of a decision. "We decided not to publish Osama's address because it was considered this would introduce high likelihood of total loss of his life. This assessment was based on a published US government reward for his capture, the stated aims of some recent US military operations disclosed in press releases, and the anticipation that a trial for charges made against him would likely result in a finding of guilty and a penalty of death."

It feels to me that if no clear articulation of the nature and likelihood of risk can be made, it is frequently the case that this is so because no significant risk exists. To the extent that evidence exists, this becomes a stronger and stronger case for confidence in publishing something. To the extent that evidence does not exist, there will be a greater and greater element of presuming the possibility of harm, in the lack of evidence to the contrary.

Repeated assertions of the appropriateness of do no harm, presumption of privacy and special vulnerability of children will always be true, but do not constitute arguments supplying evidence for their applicability to any particular case.

Additionally, at a meta-level of evalutation, in general I suspect the shorter a debate regarding privacy, the more likely it is that there is substantial unambiguous evidence, and hence the more decisive the decision. On the other hand, the more protracted the debate, the more likely it is that there is no clear case in favour of privacy. In such cases, the debate is prolonged because the principles, rather than the evidence, fuel continuation of the discussion.

Anyway, just some thoughts I thought I might offer in case they might help in future discussions similar to the current one.

Peace out. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I have replied at Alastair's talkpage.--Slp1 (talk) 16:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

To me, it seems a relatively trivial matter to include information that is already verifiable in reliable sources. I know the BLPites are going to swoop down with "do no harm", but that's a guideline that I don't subscribe to, especially when there's no real chance of harm, we're mirroring content already available in reliable sources, and it's only something as trivial as somebody's name. We aren't talking about some sensationalist sex scandal, who slept with who on American Idol or Survivor or whatever, using supermarket tabloids as sources. We're talking about adding someone's name using scholarly sources as the basis. I don't see anything wrong with that. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 11:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

In summary, there are virtually no reliable sources who have named the real name of this woman in the last 37 years. Per [15] we are supposed to prioritize what scholarly sources have chosen to do, and all but one of the hundreds and hundreds of books, films, journal articles, written about this case have not named her. BLP and "do no harm" is actually a policy, not a guideline, and though you may feel that a history of abuse is not something awful enough to be suppressed, most media would not agree with you: these days the names of rape and child abuse victims are not published to protect the victim's privacy (but they do publish the names in the scandals you talk about!!!) In addition, the real name of this person does not add anything significant to the article, but it does expose the real woman, a woman whose fame depends entirely on the actions of others, (and who is scarcely in a position to protest then or now) to the intrusive interest of the thousands of people who learn about her case as "Genie" each year and then want to know what happened to her. Some have even indicated their interest on this page! You will note above that various other editors who are typically unsympathetic to the "Do no harm" mantra agree that this is a clear case where this applies [16] [17]. But in any case, the decision to omit the name doesn't depend on this argument alone: there are other solid BLP privacy policy reasons why we should not publish it. --Slp1 (talk) 11:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

But you're missing the point. The name is already easily findable by cursory searches on the subject, so any harm, real or imaginary, to the subject has already been done. I could see this as an argument if it was some Wikipedian's discovery without any appearance in sourcing, but it isn't. It's already appeared in RS. If someone is determined enough to find real-life information about the subject, our not including her name is an impediment ranked between pointless and almost completely inconsequential. I fail to see how there are privacy concerns at stake here. It's a name. It's not an address, not a phone number, not an email address; those are obvious privacy concerns. It's a name. We publish the names of 271,939 other people. What makes this one so special? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 19:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Easily findable? I don't think so. Start with her pseudonym, and without using her real name as part of the search, see how many reliable sources you come up that use the real name and how long it takes you to find them. It's actually very difficult to find her real name you don't know it already. But you have the right idea in that yes, people who are determined enough will be able to find it on the net if they insist. Ditto with lots of other articles on this website such as the Star Wars kid. Just because some have used the name there doesn't mean that we could or should make it easy by putting it on wikipedia. See the talkpage on the Star Wars article, and this Times article which applauds the decision made there. [18] Of course it's a privacy concern: the name helps to identify her, that is precisely why victims of rape and child abuse are not named these days. Surely you can see why. Would you really think it would be fine for a friend or a relative's name to be published if they had been abused? For everybody in your town, from close friends, to neighbours, and even total strangers to know and chitchat about what had happened? Slp1 (talk) 19:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Ironically, the Times article gives the kid's name (in the photo alt text) :-(. --GRuban (talk) 20:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Too true. Oh dear.  :-( Slp1 (talk) 21:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Real Name (Part 4 and Finito)

As you can clearly see here. All the hand-wringing was for nought.Wjhonson (talk) 00:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Almost. Note that even the ABC story seems to go out of its way to avoid giving her first name, just referring to her as Genie, though it does give the names of her relatives. It seems a fine point, but clearly deliberate. --GRuban (talk) 01:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. And does this one article, mainly about her brother, mean that her last name is now "widely disseminated"? I don't think so myself. But I look forward to other opinions on this subject.--Slp1 (talk) 01:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Definitely not "widely disseminated", I would say. Ashton1983 (talk) 22:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I also would like to say that I don't like the fact that Wjhonson has been going around to various websites with articles on Genie and posting links to his site, as if he's trying to "spread the word" by telling as many people as he can what her real name is. See here and notice his comment at the bottom. I've seen others too. Also notice how the first line in that article says, "They called her "Genie" -- a pseudonym to protect her privacy" For An Angel (talk) 02:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd say ABC news is *pretty wide* distribution, and it's current! So that excuse flys out the window. Her own brother, using his full real name, has a video interview. Since the story has generated so much attention over 38 years you can be sure it was watched by a number of people. How many million viewers do you need for "wide distribution"? As you can see I added the *surname* not her first name, and "For An Angel" of course I'm trying to "spread the word". An activity which has no bearing on this article. We are here to journalize the world, what is actually occuring. Not hide it. Wjhonson (talk) 03:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's current, which is a plus. And I appreciate that you have not included the first name. But I don't agree that 1 recent mention (plus the one from the book) in the otherwise 100s of other articles/books that did not use it, means that it is widely disseminated. Especially given that "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." WP:BLP. Wjhonson is certainly allowed to "journalize" the world all he likes off this site, I suppose, but I find it telling that ABC news website has removed his posts giving her full name and the link to his website. Given that the final lines of one of the articles is "In her meticulous research, Weedon learned Genie's real name and, "without too much more investigation" could find her -- but has decided against it. "It wouldn't be fair," she said. "It would be too invasive, and she isn't the same little girl when the stories were written about her. I wouldn't do it -- for her sake and her memory", at least they are consistent! Given the previous very strong consensus for the name's non-inclusion, I suggest we remove the last name until there is a clear consensus here that it is appropriate to include it given the new information.--Slp1 (talk) 16:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Tough call. From the "do no harm" angle, I really like what we did in the Star Wars Kid article, because adding his name could hurt him when he goes looking for a job, or otherwise gets on with his life. Here, however, I don't see how including Genie's name would hurt her that much, since she's not going to be applying for a job, or a home mortgage, or a car loan, and her address is not in any telephone book under that name. The parents are both dead, and while the brother is alive, he seems very open to being written about, since he seems to be the source of the ABC stories and photos. Now let's see what sources give Genie's first name, and which give the last name. ABCNews apparently did not just one recent story on this, but two and a photo series:

• "Wild Child Speechless After Tortured Life: Abandoned by Doctors and Mother, Abused in Foster Care, 'Genie' Regressed", By SUSAN DONALDSON JAMES, May 7, 2008
• "Raised by a Tyrant, Suffering a Sibling's Abuse: John Wiley's Life May Foretell the Brutal, Lonely Future for Austrian Family" By SUSAN DONALDSON JAMES May 19, 2008
• "Wiley Family's Past" Susan James/ABC

All three give the family name only, but in quite a few places. But that is just a newspaper, we're supposed to give more weight to scientific publications. There are some of those, too.

• Savage Girls and Wild Boys: A History of Feral Children by Michael Newton, Publisher: Thomas Dunne Books; 1st Us edition March 14, 2003, ISBN 031230093X. From this review and the Amazon excerpt, it looks like this book gives first and last name -- see the Amazon index under Genie, page 277, for example, where it gives the first name in parentheses. It looks like Michael Newton teaches at University College London.
• This book had a video made out of it, which was shown on Channel 4 British television, and The Learning Channel. From this summary (DOC format Google HTML format), it looks like the video gave the family name at least.
• "Finding Aid for the Collection of Research Materials related to Linguistic-Psychological Studies of Genie (pseudonym)", from University of California, Los Angeles, gives first and last name in three places.
• Encounters with Wild Children, book by Adriana S. Benzaquén, Published 2006, McGill-Queen's Press, ISBN 0773529721 gives first and last name prominently in a chapter on the case. McGill is a respected Canadian university. --GRuban (talk) 15:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Well found, but a few corrections if you will forgive me!

• There are actually only two articles at ABC (the third one you have is a photo gallery from one of the articles). They mention the last name is the context of her family members, not her specifically. We can guess that it is probably her last name, but it is only a guess.
• Through Amazon, I can see inside the Savage Girls and Wild Boys: A History of Feral Children book and they mention her first name only. And only then a few times before switching to Genie.
• I don't think the video summary would qualify as a reliable source mor a scholarly source for our purposes and once again the name is mentioned in the context of her father, not her.
• The list of documents is also not really a reliable source (or a scholarly source for that matter) for our purposes, and anyway it does not actually make the link between Genie and her name. I mean, we can figure it out because we think we know what it is, but someone coming by without knowing would have no idea necessarily.
• Yes, the McGill Queen's book is a reliable, scholarly source, and yes it mentions both names once before switching to Genie. It is the book to which I was referring above.

I myself think that "do no harm" applies whatever your abilities or disabilities: I really don't think it makes the slightest bit of difference whether she is going to get a job or not. She is entitled to her privacy like anybody. Since she has never sought the spotlight, I cannot see how her case is any different that the Star Wars kid, except for the fact that in this case there are many, many more reliable, and especially scholarly sources about her, a tiny, tiny percentage of which mention either her first or last name. And honestly, does it add anything significant to the encyclopedia entry? Does it help our understanding at all? --Slp1 (talk) 15:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Well said! Ashton1983 (talk) 22:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You already know the answer Slp1. Using her real name I was able to find literally *tons* of information on the family details. Her article on my site is one of the largest I've ever writen. Remember that this article here is a biography. It is not an "Event" article. A biography should always be about the person's full life and family situation. The vast majority of biographies contain intense details on parents, siblings, even grandparents. That is simply the gold standard of how biographers today write biographies. We no longer have that view that people arrive fully-formed without their environment. So her family is important to her article. Wjhonson (talk) 17:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's really a biography in the sense of the article about Churchill or Anne Boleyn or Robespierre. It's not a typical "event" article either. I think it's really a "case" article. This unfortunate woman was famous not because of the abuse (thousands of abuse cases, widely reported, are forgotten within ten years) but because she could be "used" to prove or refute the theory that there is an age after which a child cannot learn a language perfectly. In other words, the thing for which she is famous has nothing to do with her family details. I'd love to see more in the article about the efforts to teach her to speak, not what her real name and her parents' real names were. Ashton1983 (talk) 22:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You can write about her family all you want, but how necessary is it to use their full names? For documenation purposes? I happen to think her privacy and safety are more important. The vast majority of BLPs here on Wikipedia are not of people who's notability was due to their years of enduring abuse. For An Angel (talk) 21:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, absolutely. Ashton1983 (talk) 22:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

ABCNews

I'm glad that For an Angel now sees that there is no way to avoid mentioning the new ABCNews article, which easily leads to all the other material with a simple Google search. However it is tendentious to constantly quote that her name was protected, even from an article which clearly names the family as "Wiley" over and over and over.Wjhonson (talk) 18:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I do NOT now see that there is no way to avoid mentioning the ABCNews article, I only used it as a reference to show that her name was hidden for her own protection. I could have just as easily used a different reference to show that. Besides, I've never argued that her name wasn't verifiable, only that it doesn't belong in the article per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of names. For An Angel (talk) 21:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)